`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT AND TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`ANCESTRY.COM DNA, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DNA GENOTEK INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00060
`Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`_______________
`
`PETITIONER ANCESTRY.COM DNA, LLC’S
`REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`UPDATED MANDATORY NOTICES .......................................................... 1
`
`A. Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .............................. 1
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 2
`
`PO HAS WAIVED ALLARGUMENTS NOT INCLUDED IN PATENT
`OWNER RESPONSE ...................................................................................... 3
`
`IV. PO NEWLY ARGUES IMPROPER CONSTRUCTION OF
`“CONFIGURED TO REMOVABLY ENGAGE” IN ADDRESSING
`ANTICIPATION BY O’DONOVAN (GROUND 1) ..................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Prior PO Arguments Rely Upon a Much Broader Construction ........... 4
`
`Patent Owner’s New Claim Construction Improperly Reads in
`Unclaimed Limitations .......................................................................... 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`PO Asks the Board to Read an Intended Use Requirement
`into Both the Prior Art and Claim 1 ............................................ 6
`
`PO Asks the Board to Read an “Inherent Feature”
`Requirement into Claim 1 ........................................................... 9
`
`PO’s Claim Construction is Inconsistent with Precedent ......... 11
`
`V. O’DONOVAN DISCLOSES A LID “CONFIGURED TO
`REMOVABLY ENGAGE” A VIAL ............................................................ 13
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Rely on Unsubstantiated and
`Unwarranted Assumptions .................................................................. 13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`PO Improperly Assumes a “Flush” Lid with “Very Small
`Gap” to Prevent User Removal ................................................. 13
`
`PO Relies on Incorrect Friction Coefficients ............................ 17
`
`
`
`i
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`PO Arguments Regarding O’Donovan’s Cover are Based on
`a Logical Fallacy ....................................................................... 19
`
`PO Mistakenly Conflates Engagement of the Friction Fit
`with Engagement of the Lid ...................................................... 20
`
`VI. OBVIOUSNESS OVER O’DONOVAN IN VIEW OF KCCL (GROUND
`2) .................................................................................................................... 22
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`PO Challenged No Limitations of Claims 1 and 7 over O’Donovan
`in view of KCCL ................................................................................. 22
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Combining O’Donovan and
`KCCL Misstate Petitioner ................................................................... 24
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Rely on a Mistaken Understanding of
`the Obviousness Standard Set Out in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. ... 28
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 29
`
`ii
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`DNA Genotek Inc. v. Spectrum Solutions L.L.C. and Spectrum DNA,
`Case No. 3:16-cv-01544-JLS-NLS (S.D. Cal.) ..................................................... 1
`
`DNA Genotek, Inc. v. Ancestry.com DNA LLC,
`Case No. 15-00355-SLR (D. Del.) ......................................................................... 1
`
`DNA Genotek, Inc. v. Spectrum DNA; Spectrum Solutions L.L.C., and Spectrum
`Packaging, LLC,
`Case No. 15-cv-00661-SLR (D. Del.) ................................................................... 1
`
`Ex parte Masham,
`2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) ..................................................... 8
`
`Ex parte Yutaka Imai,
`Appeal 2012-003246, Decision on Appeal at 4 (Sept. 30, 2014) ........................ 11
`
`In re Zletz,
`893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ................................................. 9
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................. 28
`
`Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ................... 14
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................. 5
`
`Profectus Tech. v. Huawei Tech.,
`Case Nos. 2015-1016, 2015-1018, and, 2015-1019, Slip. Op. at 3 (Fed. Cir. May
`26, 2016) ................................................................................................... 9, 10, 11
`
`Riverbed Tech., Inc. v. Silver Peak Sys.,
`2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102589 at 3 (D. Del., July 23, 2013) ............................. 11
`
`
`
`iii
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Group, Inc.,
`CBM2012-00001 (Paper 81) .................................................................................. 3
`
`Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enterprises,
`632 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 27
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. §301(d) ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 USC § 301(a)(2) .................................................................................................... 5
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(iii) ........................................................................................ 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e) ................................................................................................... v
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`EXHIBIT LIST (37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e))
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,221,381 to Muir, et al.
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,221,381
`
`Declaration of Terry N. Layton, Ph.D.
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Terry N. Layton, Ph.D.
`
`Plaintiff DNA Genotek Inc.’s Opening Brief in Support of Motion for
`Preliminary Injunction, DNA Genotek, Inc. v. Spectrum DNA; Spectrum
`Solutions L.L.C., and Spectrum Packaging, LLC, Case No. 15-cv-00661-
`SLR
`
`Declaration of Juan C. Lasheras, Ph.D., DNA Genotek, Inc. v. Spectrum
`DNA; Spectrum Solutions L.L.C., and Spectrum Packaging, LLC, Case
`No. 15-cv-00661-SLR
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,645,424 to O’Donovan
`
`PCT Patent Publication WO 2003/104251 to DNA Genotek, Inc. (ex-US
`designations) and Birnboim (US designation)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,152,296 to Shih
`
`PCT Patent Publication WO98/03265 (Japanese)
`
`Certified English Translation of PCT Patent Publication WO98/03265
`and certification thereof
`
`German Publication DE 199 50 884 A1 (German)
`
`Certified English Translation of German Publication DE 199 50 884 A1
`and certification thereof
`
`1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,228,323 to Asgharian, et al.
`
`
`
`v
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`Description
`
`The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
`Edition (2000) (selected pages) (definitions of: “cor-ner”; “fastener”;
`“inert”; “reservoir”; “vial”)
`
`Defendants’ Brief in Opposition to DNA Genotek’s Motion for
`Preliminary Injunction, DNA Genotek, Inc. v. Spectrum DNA; Spectrum
`Solutions L.L.C., and Spectrum Packaging, LLC, Case No. 15-cv-00661-
`SLR (REDACTED, PUBLICLY AVAILABLE, VERSION)
`
`Declaration of Terry Layton, Ph.D. in Support of Defendants’ Opposition
`to DNA Genotek’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, DNA Genotek,
`Inc. v. Spectrum DNA; Spectrum Solutions L.L.C., and Spectrum
`Packaging, LLC, Case No. 15-cv-00661-SLR
`
`U.S. provisional application no. 60/523,104, filed November 18, 2003 by
`O’Donovan
`
`Chart, numerical designation of claim elements
`
`Declaration of Michael J. Sacksteder in Support of Petitioner’s Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Michael J. Sacksteder Pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`Declaration of Melanie L. Mayer in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of Melanie L. Mayer Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`42.10(c)
`
`NOT FILED, PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED AS PAPER 5
`Resubmitted Petition for Inter Partes Review for US Patent 8,221,381
`(Paper 5)
`(Marked as Exhibit 1022 at the Deposition of John M. Collins, Ph.D. on
`August 24, 2016)
`
`
`
`vi
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`Description
`
`NOT FILED, PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED AS PAPER 19
`Institution Decision from The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Paper 19)
`(Marked as Exhibit 1023 at the Deposition of John M. Collins, Ph.D. on
`August 24, 2016)
`
`Deposition of John M. Collins, Ph.D., August 24, 2016
`
`Excerpt from the Deposition of John Collins, Ph.D., November 13, 2015,
`DNA Genotek Inc. v. Spectrum DNA, et al., USDC – D. Del. Case No.
`15-CV-00661
`
`Declaration of John M. Collins, Ph.D. in Support of Plaintiff’s Reply in
`Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, DNA Genotek Inc. v.
`Spectrum Solutions L.L.C., et al., USDC – S.D. Cal. Case No. 16-CV-
`01544 (Docket No. 51), filed August 19, 2016
`
`1027
`
`Biomek® User’s Manual, Beckman Coulter PN 719448, SAGIAN
`Control Number 100-00-00388, Revision AA, May 2000, select pages
`
`vii
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`The Board instituted Inter Partes Review on April 8, 2016. (Paper 19).
`
`DNA Genotek Inc. (“PO”) filed its Response on June 22, 2016. (Paper 22).
`
`Ancestry.com DNA, LLC (“Petitioner”) submits this reply under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.23.
`
`I.
`
`UPDATED MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ’381 patent is the subject of the following patent infringement lawsuits:
`
`(i) DNA Genotek, Inc. v. Ancestry.com DNA LLC, Case No. 15-00355-SLR (D.
`
`Del.) (the “Ancestry ’381 litigation”); and (ii) DNA Genotek, Inc. v. Spectrum
`
`DNA; Spectrum Solutions L.L.C., and Spectrum Packaging, LLC, Case No. 15-cv-
`
`00661-SLR (D. Del.) (the “Spectrum ’381 litigation”).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,207,164 issued from Application Serial No. 13/536,599
`
`(“the ’599 application”), filed on 6/28/2013. The ‘599 application is a continuation
`
`of the ’381 patent. The ’164 patent is the subject of the following patent
`
`infringement lawsuit: DNA Genotek Inc. v. Spectrum Solutions L.L.C. and
`
`Spectrum DNA, Case No. 3:16-cv-01544-JLS-NLS (S.D. Cal.) (the “Spectrum ‘164
`
`litigation”).
`
`
`
`1
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`The ’381 patent also is the subject of IPR2016-01152 (“second IPR”), filed
`
`on June 3, 2016, which is not yet instituted.
`
`The ’164 patent also is the subject of IPR2016-01467 (“third IPR”), filed on
`
`July 21, 2016, which is not yet instituted.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner DNA Genotek Inc. (PO) has limited the issues the Board
`
`needs to consider by challenging only the limitation “configured to removably
`
`engage” for claim 1 in Ground 1 and the combining of references in Ground 2, and
`
`has waived issues from POPR not maintained in POR. PO newly asks for a
`
`narrowed construction of claim 1 that is inconsistent with its litigation position and
`
`improperly reads in unclaimed limitations. PO’s arguments regarding Ground 1
`
`rely upon unsubstantiated and unwarranted assumptions not supported by the
`
`factual record that lead to erroneous conclusions. PO’s Ground 2 arguments
`
`misstate Petitioner’s combination motivations, and rely upon mischaracterizations
`
`of the role of the POSITA in the obviousness analysis. PO presents no legitimate
`
`challenge to the Board’s reasoning from the Institution Decision.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`III. PO HAS WAIVED ALLARGUMENTS NOT INCLUDED IN PATENT
`OWNER RESPONSE
`
`The Patent Owner Response (POR) addresses only two main issues: For
`
`Ground 1, whether O’Donovan discloses “configured to removably engage” in
`
`limitation [1.6], and for Ground 2, whether sufficient motivation exists for
`
`combining O’Donovan and KCCL. Absent from POR is any argument addressing,
`
`for Ground 1, any of the limitations of claim 1 besides “configured to removably
`
`engage,” and any of the additional limitations of dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 11,
`
`12, 15-17, 20, 41, 44, and 49. Also absent from POR is any argument addressing,
`
`for Ground 2, any limitations of claims 1 and 7, PO’s argument relying entirely on
`
`a challenge to the motivation to combine O’Donovan and KCCL.
`
`PO did not identify or maintain several issues it had raised in its Patent
`
`Owner Preliminary Response (POPR) (Paper 16). In SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata
`
`Dev. Group, Inc., CBM2012-00001 (Paper 81), the Board refused to consider a
`
`PO’s arguments raised in the POPR that were not included in the POR, deeming
`
`them to have been waived. Since PO in the present trial limits the issues raised in
`
`the POR, any issues addressed solely in the POPR and not maintained in the POR
`
`should likewise be deemed waived.
`
`
`
`3
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`IV. PO NEWLY ARGUES IMPROPER CONSTRUCTION OF
`“CONFIGURED TO REMOVABLY ENGAGE” IN ADDRESSING
`ANTICIPATION BY O’DONOVAN (GROUND 1)
`A.
`
`Prior PO Arguments Rely Upon a Much Broader Construction
`
`POR newly offers a narrower construction of limitation [1.6]. This narrower
`
`construction runs contrary to prior assertions of scope made by PO and its expert in
`
`the Spectrum ’381 litigation. PO has not disclosed these positions as inconsistent
`
`with a position during concurrent litigation, as required by 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.51(b)(1)(iii).
`
`According to Patent Owner’s litigation position on the scope of [1.6], a
`
`showing that a “lid is placed on the collection tube…and later removed” is
`
`sufficient to show this limitation. See Petition at 9-10, citing Ex. 1006, ¶25.1
`
`However, in the POR – in which the “broadest reasonable interpretation” (BRI)
`
`
`1 Specifically, PO’s expert stated in litigation: “The next limitation of claim 1 is a
`
`lid configured to removably engage said vial. The Spectrum product meets this
`
`limitation. In operation, a user places the lid on the collection tube after filling the
`
`sample storage area with saliva. When the Spectrum Product arrives at the lab, the
`
`lab staff removes the lid and assesses the sample.” Petition, Ex. 1006 at ¶25; see
`
`also id., p. 100 (Exhibit E, claim chart: limitation [1.6]).
`
`
`
`4
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`standard applies – PO argues that a lid that is placed and later removed is not
`
`sufficient.
`
`PO’s contrary litigation position is now indisputably ripe for consideration
`
`by the Board. As admitted by PO in POPR, “35 USC § 301(a)(2) [] encourages
`
`submission of Patent Owner claim constructions to prevent patentees from arguing
`
`broad interpretations under Phillips while simultaneously arguing narrow
`
`constructions as the BRI,” and should be used when “determining the claim scope
`
`in a proceeding that has already been ordered or instituted.” POPR (Paper 16) at 5,
`
`citing 35 U.S.C. § 301(a)(2), (d); POR, Ex. 2003 at 8. Despite advancing a
`
`narrower position in this IPR than that relied upon in litigation, PO has not brought
`
`such inconsistencies to the Board’s attention. Because PO considers these
`
`positions about the scope of limitation [1.6] proper under the narrower litigation
`
`standard set out in Phillips, PO cannot contend that such constructions fall outside
`
`the scope of the limitation under the broader BRI.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s New Claim Construction Improperly Reads in
`Unclaimed Limitations
`
`Patent Owner’s focus on the words “configured to” in limitation [1.6] is
`
`new. In the POPR, PO did not argue that these words had any special meaning.
`
`Nor did PO do so in the litigation arguments discussed above. However, following
`
`
`
`5
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`the Institution Decision, PO asks the Board to narrow the construction of this
`
`limitation to read in requirements not recited in the claim. The opportunity for PO
`
`to amend claim 1 has passed. If PO desired a narrower scope than it relied upon in
`
`litigation, it should have amended claim 1 to reflect that scope.
`
`1.
`
`PO Asks the Board to Read an Intended Use Requirement into
`Both the Prior Art and Claim 1
`
`PO’s expert, Dr. Collins, admitted in his direct testimony that he could not
`
`think of any two-piece assembly that cannot be separated in some way after being
`
`attached. See Ex. 2005 at ¶21. But when questioned during his deposition about
`
`whether the lid of the O’Donovan device could be removed, Dr. Collins refused to
`
`answer outside the scope of the O’Donovan device’s intended use:
`
`Q.
`
`I'm just saying, in a device that is built as O'Donovan teaches,
`
`would it be possible to remove the lid?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`It shouldn't be, no. . . Within the context of the intended use. . . .
`
`I didn't say anything about any context for intended use. I just
`
`said, if you had a device that was built the way O'Donovan
`
`teaches, could you remove the lid if you wanted to?. . .
`
`A.
`
`In what context? . . .
`
`
`
`6
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`Q.
`
`I'm talking about the device as a device, just as it exists. You
`
`have this device, you have something inside that you want to
`
`take out, regardless of whether that's in the context of the
`
`intended use or not, would it be possible to remove the lid?
`
`A.
`
`If you take this device outside of it—completely outside of its
`
`intended use, and you bring it into a machine shop or
`
`someplace with special equipment, sure, you can always find
`
`some way of cutting the device or doing something to separate
`
`the components of the device in a way it wasn't intended.
`
`Q.
`
`Paragraph 21 of your direct testimony, you say, “I can think of
`
`no two-piece assembly (e.g., a ‘vial’ and a ‘lid’) that cannot be
`
`separated in some way after being attached”; correct?
`
`A.
`
`That's correct. . . .
`
`Q. And so that includes the lid and vial in O'Donovan; correct?
`
`A.
`
`That's absolutely correct when done outside of context of how
`
`this device intended to be used.
`
`Exhibit 1024 at 59:14-61:23 (objections omitted).
`
`
`
`7
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`The Board held in Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. &
`
`Inter. 1987), that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in
`
`which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the
`
`claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all
`
`the structural limitations of the claim. In Masham, the claim recited “means for
`
`mixing…. said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the
`
`developer material.” The claim was rejected over a reference that taught all
`
`structural limitations of the claim, even though the prior art reference’s mixer was
`
`only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the
`
`amount of submersion – the intended use – was immaterial to the structure of the
`
`mixer, and thus the claim was properly rejected. Similarly, because O’Donovan
`
`discloses all structural limitations of claim 1, PO’s focus on “intended use” is
`
`immaterial to the analysis here.
`
`Paralleling the effort to read a limiting “intended use” into the prior art, PO
`
`also argues for the unclaimed intended use of the ’381 vial to be read into claim 1.
`
`PO argues that “[t]he ’381 Patent makes clear why the lid is configured to be
`
`removed from the vial…. A mere capability for release is insufficient to provide
`
`for subsequent processing.” POR at 3-4 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`8
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`First, this argument is nonsensical. If it is capable of being released, then the
`
`release would provide access for the subsequent processing. More importantly, the
`
`“subsequent processing” that PO relies upon is not recited in claim 1. Since this
`
`limitation is not claimed, it is improper to import it from the specification. See In
`
`re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`
`2.
`
`PO Asks the Board to Read an “Inherent Feature” Requirement
`into Claim 1
`
`In the POR, PO newly offers a narrower construction of the limitation of
`
`“configured to removably engage” in [1.6], as meaning that the lid must have an
`
`“inherent feature” for removal. For this new argument, PO relies on Profectus
`
`Tech. v. Huawei Tech., Case Nos. 2015-1016, 2015-1018, and, 2015-1019, Slip.
`
`Op. at 3 (Fed. Cir. May 26, 2016). See POR at 10-12. PO relies on Profectus to
`
`support its position that the term “configured to” preceding “removably engage”
`
`means something narrower than just “removably engage.”
`
`In particular, PO alleges that the court in Profectus “held the “term
`
`‘mountable’ [] a modifying word in….‘mountable picture frame’” and that broader
`
`words, “such as ‘capable of,’” were absent from the claims.” POR at 11. Based on
`
`Profectus, PO argues that “configured to be removably engaged” means that the lid
`
`
`
`9
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`has an “inherent feature” for removal, since “mountable” was held to mean having
`
`a feature for mounting.
`
`Dr. Collins appeared to have relied on Patent Owner’s alleged “inherent
`
`feature” requirement when rendering his opinion.
`
`Q. Why did you discuss whether there is an inherent feature
`
`disclosed for lid removal in O’Donovan?
`
`A.
`
`Because the patent would need to teach that there's some way to
`
`be able to remove it, so there needs to be some feature which is
`
`inherent, or in quotes, an “inherent feature.”
`
`Q. Why do you believe that?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`It's my understanding.
`
`Based on what?
`
`Based on my discussion with counsel and my understanding as
`
`an engineer reading patents.
`
`Ex. 1024 at 82:18-83:3 (objections removed).
`
`However, PO selectively quotes Profectus and mischaracterizes its holding.
`
`Specifically, PO omits portion of the paragraph that addresses the very words at
`
`issue here: “configured to.” The relevant sentence reads in full:
`
`
`
`10
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`“Absent from the claims are words that embrace broader meaning, such as
`
`“capable of,” “adapted to,” or “configured to.” Profectus at 9 (emphasis added).
`
`Thus, in context, Profectus includes among the “broadening terms” the
`
`identical term used in claim 1 – “configured to.” The court concluded that
`
`inclusion of “configured to” along with “modifying words” broadens these words
`
`rather than narrowing them.
`
`Since Profectus distinguished claims that have “words that embrace broader
`
`meaning, such as …configured to,” PO’s argument that an “inherent feature” is
`
`required to meet this limitation is erroneous, since it only applies when “configured
`
`to” or other broadening terms are absent. Dr. Collins’s opinions based on this
`
`spurious “inherent feature” requirement likewise should be accorded no weight.
`
`3.
`
`PO’s Claim Construction is Inconsistent with Precedent
`
`PO misstates the role of design in the case law regarding the term
`
`“configured to.” Precedent holds that if a prior art system is designed to be capable
`
`of performing the function recited with the “configured to” language, the claim
`
`limitation is met. See, e.g., Riverbed Tech., Inc. v. Silver Peak Sys., 2013 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 102589 at *3 (D. Del., July 23, 2013); see also Ex parte Yutaka Imai,
`
`Appeal 2012-003246, Decision on Appeal at 4 (Sept. 30, 2014). Thus, the
`
`
`
`11
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`limitation of ’381 claim 1 is met if the O’Donovan lid is designed in a way that is
`
`capable of removable engagement.
`
`If PO’s position is that the intended use of the O’Donovan device at the
`
`point of care is somehow meaningful to the Board’s assessment of anticipation,
`
`O’Donovan’s affirmative selection of a friction fit plus a cover for use at point of
`
`care, rather than selection of a more permanent closure, also must be accorded
`
`meaning. If O’Donovan’s selection of a friction fit plus a cover was indeed a
`
`design choice, that choice was an affirmative choice against permanence. Thus,
`
`PO’s contention that the intended use at point of care necessarily implies that
`
`O’Donovan intended its lid not to be removable is directly contradicted by
`
`O’Donovan’s having selected an impermanent closure for such use.
`
` Moreover, PO’s argument is directly contradicted by the teachings of
`
`O’Donovan’s specification that the optional cover is “to ensure” that the lid was
`
`held in place. If the lid was not intended to be removable, there would be no need
`
`for an optional component to prevent it from being removed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`V. O’DONOVAN DISCLOSES A LID “CONFIGURED TO
`REMOVABLY ENGAGE” A VIAL
`A.
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Rely on Unsubstantiated and Unwarranted
`Assumptions
`
`1.
`
`PO Improperly Assumes a “Flush” Lid with “Very Small Gap”
`to Prevent User Removal
`
`According to PO, “[w]hen a user inserts O’Donovan’s lid into the vial, the
`
`top of the vial and lid are flush and the gap between the lid and vial is very small
`
`(see relevant portion of Figure 4, reproduced below). This arrangement of
`
`structural features prevents a user from removing the lid.” POR at 7; Ex. 2005 at
`
`33. But this argument relies on incorrect assumptions.
`
`First, PO relies upon O’Donovan’s to argue that the lid is “flush” with the
`
`vial once inserted into the socket. See POR at 7 (referring to FIG. 4); Ex. 2005 at
`
`¶33 (FIG. 4), ¶37. However, nowhere does O’Donovan use the word “flush,” or
`
`otherwise describe requiring that the lid be flush with the socket when fully
`
`inserted. Indeed, O’Donovan does not limit the size of the lid to require it to be
`
`flush with the socket once inserted. Dr. Collins admitted that this is the case:
`
`“Q. The text does not say that the lid has to be flush with the top of the vial;
`
`correct? A. I don't believe it says those words, no.” Ex. 1024 at 85:14-16.
`
`
`
`13
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s reliance on the lid being “flush” with the socket is based
`
`entirely on the figures, which show only one embodiment. In Merck & Co.
`
`v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1989), the court held that a
`
`reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one
`
`having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Thus, Patent
`
`Owner’s efforts to limit O’Donovan to an embodiment disclosed in the figures is
`
`erroneous.
`
`Second, PO asserts that “the gap between the lid and vial is very small,”
`
`again relying on FIG. 4. See POR at 7. But when questioned about this assertion,
`
`Dr. Collins admitted he performed no calculations to measure the gap:
`
`Q. You didn’t do anything to calculate what that gap was?
`
`A.
`
`It’s a schematic, so no, I don’t need to. I can look at the relative
`
`dimensions.
`
`Q.
`
`The answer is you did not do anything to attempt to calculate
`
`the size of the gap; correct?
`
`A.
`
`I approximated it.
`
`Q. You eyeballed it?
`
`
`
`14
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`A.
`
`I eyeballed it, yeah, absolutely. It's small.
`
`Ex. 1024, at 88:7-17.
`
`PO’s reliance on its expert’s “eyeball” (non-)measurement is insufficient to
`
`support the asserted conclusion.
`
`In order for the “flush” and “very small gap” assertions to support PO’s
`
`thesis that O’Donovan discloses an “arrangement of structural features [that]
`
`prevent[] a user from removing the lid” (POR at 7; Ex. 2005 at ¶33), PO further
`
`appears to assume without support that removal must be by hand:
`
`Q. What makes you say it’s not accessible?
`
`A.
`
`Just looking at the design.
`
`Q. Why specifically do you think it’s not accessible to be pulled
`
`out?
`
`A.
`
`There’s nothing to grab. There’s no way to get a hold of it and
`
`pull it out with my fingers.
`
`Ex. 1024 at 65:11-16.
`
`But nowhere does the claim recite that the lid needs to be removable “by a
`
`user,” i.e., by hand. Dr. Collins agreed to this later in his deposition:
`
`
`
`15
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`Q.
`
`In the ’381 patent, is there any requirement for removing the lid
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`by hand?
`
`I don’t believe so, no.
`
`Is it possible to -- would it be possible to practice the
`
`“configured to removably engage” limitation with a lid that is
`
`designed to be removed by a tool or a machine?
`
`A. Well, the ’381 patent describes the fact that once the sample is
`
`collected and it’s sealed by the user, it’s shipped to a
`
`laboratory—or it’s shipped to a facility where there’s a
`
`laboratory that will basically get direct access. So it needs to
`
`remove the cap. And robotic tools could be used to unscrew
`
`them so you can get direct access to the fluid.
`
`Ex. 1024 at 70:14-71:2.
`
`Indeed, the ’381 patent specification says, “Desirably vial 500 is suitable for
`
`use with robotic DNA purification systems (e.g., the Beckman BioMek™ FX).”
`
`The Beckman BioMek FX machine described therein allows for placement and
`
`removal of lids by the machine. See Biomek® FX User’s Manual, Ex. 1027 at 3.
`
`
`
`16
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`Thus, whether O’Donovan’s lid makes it difficult for a user to remove the lid by
`
`hand is irrelevant, since the claim does not require removal by a user or by hand.
`
`2.
`
`PO Relies on Incorrect Friction Coefficients
`
`POR questions Petitioner’s expert testimony that the friction fit of
`
`O’Donovan allows the same force applied in reverse to remove the lid. See POR at
`
`13-14. For support, PO relies on the testimony of Dr. Collins and a reference
`
`entitled “Standard Test Method for Static and Kinetic Coefficients of Friction of
`
`Plastic Film and Sheeting” (POR, Ex. 2011), to show the differences in coefficients
`
`of friction between static and dynamic friction. See Ex. 2005 at ¶40, citing Ex.
`
`2011 at Table 2. In Dr. Collins’ opinion, dynamic friction applies when the lid of
`
`O’Donovan is being inserted because the lid is in motion before the friction fit
`
`engages “at the level of the spikes.” Ex. 2005 at ¶39. Removal, according to Dr.
`
`Collins, is from a stationary position, and thus static friction applies. Collins thus
`
`argues that the forces are not the same, on the basis that static friction is greater
`
`than dynamic friction, citing Ex. 2011.
`
`But parts of the evidence on which Dr. Collins relies contradict his opinion.
`
`In the example from Ex. 2011 shown in Dr. Collins’ declaration (Table 2), static
`
`friction is shown as being up to 1/3rd higher than dynamic friction, at 38°C
`
`
`
`17
`
`29584/95068/DOCS/4102491.5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00060
`Patent No. Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`(~100.4° F). But Ex. 2011 also includes Table 1, which shows the frictions at
`
`23°C (~73.4°F), which Dr. Collins agreed was approximately room temperature.
`
`See Ex. 2011, Table 1; see also Ex. 1024 at 80. Dr.