UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`
`
`
`JOHN CRANE, INC., JOHN CRANE
`PRODUCTION SOLUTIONS, INC. &
`JOHN CRANE GROUP CORP.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`FINALROD IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`________________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01786
`TITLE: SUCKER ROD APPARATUS AND METHOD
`Patent 9,045,951
`________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01786
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`Overview of U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951 ................................................... 2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`THE ASSERTED GROUNDS .......................................................................... 8
`
`Overview of the Asserted Prior Art ........................................................ 8
`IV.
`Rutledge ’431............................................................................................. 9
`A.
`Iwasaki .....................................................................................................14
`B.
`C. McKay ......................................................................................................14
`D.
`Anderson ..................................................................................................15
`
`
`
`V.
`A.
`B.
`
`
`
`VI.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................15
`Definition of A Person Having Ordinary Skill In the Art ..................17
`Disputed Claim Terms ...........................................................................18
`1. “define a…distribution of force” ..............................................................18
`2. “such that” ...............................................................................................20
`
`Petitioner Failed to Show A Reasonable Likelihood The Petitioner
`Would Prevail .........................................................................................22
`Petitioner is Attempting to Shift the Burden to Patent Owner to
`Prove Patentability .................................................................................22
`Petitioner Fails to Provide a Rationale to Combine the Asserted
`References ................................................................................................24
`1. Petitioner Fails to Identify the Differences Between the Asserted Prior
`Art and the Claimed Invention of the ’951 Patent ...................................27
`2. Petitioner Has Not Provided Motivation to Modify Rutledge ’431 .........28
`3. The Problem Petitioner Relies on as Motivation to Look to Iwasaki and
`McKay is Addressed by Rutledge ’431 ....................................................32
`
`Rutledge ’431 Teaches Away From the Claim Invention of the ’951
`Patent .......................................................................................................35
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`i
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01786
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`The Petition Should Be Denied Because the Same Prior Art Asserted
`in the Petition Was Previously Presented to the USPTO ...................36
`Claims 4, 6-8, 14-15, 17, 21-22, 35, 47, 52, and 65-68 are not
`Unpatentable as obvious over Rutledge ’431 in view of Iwasaki and
`McKay ......................................................................................................39
`1. All Claim Limitations Should Be Given Full Weight ..............................39
`2. The Combination of Rutledge ’431, Iwasaki, and McKay Fail to
`Disclose, Suggest, or Teach At Least the Following Claim Limitations: 43
`Claims 50, 57, and 59 are not Unpatentable as obvious over Rutledge
`’431 in view of Iwasaki, McKay, and Anderson ..................................52
`
`
`
`
`
`VII.
`
`CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED...................................................53
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`ii
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2016-01786
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Agilent Tech., Inc v. Affymetrix, Inc.,
` 567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................... 47, 48, 53
`
`Becton, Dickinson, and Co. v. One StockDuq Holdings, LLC,
` IPR2013-00235, Paper No. 10 ..............................................................................47
`
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 6
` 10 Fed.Appx. 997 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................19
`
`Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc.,
` 661 F.3d 629 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..............................................................................47
`
`Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp.,
` 320 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................40
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Technologies, LLC,
` IPR2014-00454, Paper No. 12 ..............................................................................33
`
`Compressor Products Intern. LLC v. Graco, Inc.,
` 2013 WL 6865541 (S.D. Tex. November 19, 2013) ............................................43
`
`Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danel, Inc.,
` 567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................35
`
`Front Row Technologies, LLC v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P.,
` IPR2015-01932, Paper No. 7 ................................................................................37
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
` 383 U.S. 1 (1966) ..................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`iii
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01786
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`Hitzeman v. Rutter,
` 243 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................47
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
` 793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................15
`
`In re Fulton,
` 391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................35
`
`In re Gordon,
` 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ..............................................................................31
`
`In re Hiok Nam Tay,
` 579 Fed.Appx. 999 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .....................................................................19
`
`In re Janski,
` 508 Fed.Appx. 950 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .....................................................................42
`
`In Re Kahn,
` 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..............................................................................25
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
` 829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................23
`
`In re Nuvasive, Inc.,
`
` – F.3d – (Fed. Cir. December 7, 2016), 2016 WL 7118526 ...............................28
`
`In re Ratti,
`
` 270 F.2d 810, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959) .......................................................31
`
`In re Robertson,
` 169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ..............................................................................46
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`iv
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01786
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`In re Schreiber,
` 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................42
`
`In re Swinehart,
` 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971) ..................................................................................42
`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd.,
` 821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................25
`
`John Crane, Inc. et al. v. Finalrod IP, LLC,
` IPR2016-00521, Paper 9 .......................................................................................20
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
` 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ..............................................................................................26
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
` 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................15
`
`MStar Semiconductor, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
` 183 Fed.Appx. 957 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .....................................................................21
`
`Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp.,
` 566 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................43
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
` 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................19
`
`Runway Safe LLC v. Engineered Arresting Systems,
` IPR2015-01921, Paper No. 9 (February 29, 2016)...............................................34
`
`
`Secor View Tech. LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc.,
` 2013 WL 6147788 (D.N.J. November 21, 2013) .................................................41
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`v
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01786
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc.,
` 192 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................31
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
` 655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................26
`
`Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
` 2016 WL 7174130 (Fed. Cir. December 9, 2016) ................................................30
`
`Vizio, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Commission,
` 605 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................42
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C § 103 .........................................................................................................27
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ....................................................................................................1, 22
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ...................................................................................................24
`
`Other Authorities
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48763-64 (Aug. 14, 2012) ......................................................16
`MPEP § 2112 ...........................................................................................................46
`MPEP § 2143.01 ......................................................................................................31
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..............................................................................................15
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ..........................................................................................16
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ............................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d) ................................................................................................57
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`vi
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`An inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information
`
`presented in the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`
`petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The Board should not institute
`
`inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951 (“the ’951 Patent”) because the
`
`Petition is based on improper claim interpretations, ignores readily apparent
`
`structural and functional distinctions between the claimed invention of the ’951
`
`Patent and the asserted prior art, and fails to meet Petitioner’s burden of showing
`
`obviousness. Thus, there is no reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would
`
`prevail with respect to any of the challenged claims.
`
`Specifically, the entire Petition and supporting evidence, including the
`
`Declaration of Petitioner’s Expert, Dr. Wooley, fails to provide any analysis of the
`
`claims of the ’951 Patent as properly construed, and fails to identify in the prior art
`
`one of the material element that exists in every claim of the ’951 Patent. Therefore,
`
`the Petition fails to “specify where each element of the [claimed invention] is
`
`found in the prior art.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).
`
`Consequently, Petitioner has not met the threshold statutory requirement of
`
`showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at
`
`least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 1
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01786
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,045,951
`
`The ’951 Patent relates, generally, to secondary recovery systems and
`
`methods for use with hydrocarbon and other types of wells, and more specifically,
`
`to improved connectors (e.g., end fittings) and methods usable with strings of
`
`sucker rods made from fiberglass. See Exhibit [1001] at Col. 1, ll. 15-20.
`
`In many oil wells, the pressure in the oil reservoir is not sufficient to lift the
`
`oil to the surface. In such cases, it is conventional to use a sub-surface pump to
`
`force the oil from the well. A pumping unit located at the surface drives the sub-
`
`surface pump. The pumping unit is connected to the sub-surface pump by a string
`
`of sucker rods. The pumping unit moves the sucker rod string up and down to drive
`
`the sub-surface pump. Id. at Col. 1, ll. 63-65 – Col. 2, ll. 1-3.
`
`FIG. 12 of the ’951 Patent illustrates a generic pumping system (600). The
`
`pumping system (600) includes a pump drive (622), which is a conventional beam
`
`pump, or pump jack and is connected to a downhole pump (626) through a sucker
`
`rod string (624) inserted into wellbore (628). A sucker rod string (624), comprised
`
`of a series of connected sucker rods (610), a series of conventional length rods
`
`connected together, or any combination thereof, extends from the downhole pump
`
`(626) to the pumping system (600). The pump drive (622) includes a horsehead
`
`(622A), a beam (622B), a gearbox (622C) and a motor (622D). Preferably, the
`
`sucker rod (610) is a fiberglass or composite rod. Id. at Col. 25, ll. 7-35; see also
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01786
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`FIG. 12.
`
`
`The ’951 Patent, Figure 12
`
`
`
`Conventional sucker rod strings were formed from lengths of steel rod,
`
`having threaded connectors at each end for engaging adjacent segments of rod, to
`
`form a string of sufficient length to connect a pump jack to a downhole pump.
`
`Because steel is heavy, expensive, and suffers from other inherent difficulties,
`
`alternative types of sucker rod materials have been explored, such as fiberglass.
`
`Fiberglass offers an equivalent or greater tensile strength than steel, while being
`
`both lighter and less costly, enabling a string of fiberglass sucker rods to be
`
`reciprocated using less energy and smaller equipment. Fiberglass rods also possess
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01786
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`the ability to stretch in an axial direction, such that each stroke of a pump jack can
`
`be assisted by the natural expansion and contraction of the sucker rod string,
`
`allowing for shorter and more energy efficient strokes. Exhibit [1001] at Col. 1, ll.
`
`37-47.
`
`For the purpose of illustration, Figure 1 of the ’951 Patent depicts an end
`
`fitting (10) that “has a body (12) (e.g., a generally tubular, cylindrical body), with
`
`threads (14) at one end thereof for engaging an adjacent object (e.g., a connector
`
`engaged with a subsequent section of a sucker rod string).” Id. at Col. 6, ll. 63-66.
`
`The end fitting (10) includes an open end (16), to engage the sucker rod segment
`
`(32), and a closed end (18) opposite the open end (16). The body (12) of the end
`
`fitting is generally hollow, having an interior surface defining a cavity for
`
`receiving the sucker rod segment (32) and including a wedge system (13). The
`
`wedge system (13) illustrated in FIG. 1 includes an outer wedge (20), an
`
`intermediate wedge (22), and an inner wedge (24). A suitable securing material
`
`(“resin material”), such as a cured epoxy or other resin, is present in the cavity
`
`between the sucker rod segment (32) and the interior surface of the end fitting (10)
`
`and fixedly secures the sucker rod segment (32) in the end fitting (10). Id. at Col.
`
`6, ll. 63 – Col. 7, ll.12; see also Figure 1.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01786
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`
`The ’951 Patent, Figure 1
`
`
`Each wedge when viewed in cross-section has a relatively triangular
`
`configuration and includes, generally, a leading edge positioned closer to the open
`
`end (16), a trailing edge positioned closer to the closed end (18), and an angle
`
`between the leading and trailing edges. Specifically, in FIG. 1, the outer wedge
`
`(20) is shown having a first leading edge (26A), a first trailing edge (28A), and a
`
`first angle (30A); the intermediate wedge (22) is shown having a second leading
`
`edge (26B), a second trailing edge (28B), and a second angle (30B); and the inner
`
`wedge (24) is shown having a third leading edge (26C), a third trailing edge (28C),
`
`and a third angle (30C). Id. at Col. 7, ll. 13-24.
`
` When subjected to a force in the direction of the open end (16), contact
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01786
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`between the protruding wedges (29A, 29B, 29C) of resin material extending from
`
`the sucker rod segment (32) and the leading edges (26C, 26B, 26A) will distribute
`
`compressive force to the sucker rod segment (32) at each of the respective wedge
`
`portions (24, 22, 20). Id. at Col. 7, ll. 43-48.
`
`The distribution of force in each wedge portion varies, such that the
`
`compressive load applied to the inner wedge portion is greater than the
`
`compressive load applied to the intermediate wedge portion, and the compressive
`
`load applied to the intermediate wedge portion is greater than the compressive load
`
`applied to the outer wedge portion, enabling compressive forces at the closed end
`
`of the body to exceed compressive forces at the open end of the body. Id. at Col. 5,
`
`ll. 28-35.
`
`The following Claim 7 is an illustrative claim of the ’951 Patent:
`
`7.
`
` An end fitting for a sucker rod, the end fitting comprising:
`
`a body having an interior, a closed end, an open end, and a
`
`wedge system formed in the interior, wherein the wedge system
`
`comprises:
`
`an outer wedge portion formed in the interior proximate to the
`
`open end, wherein the outer wedge portion comprises a first leading
`
`edge, a first trailing edge, and a first angle between the first leading
`
`edge and the first trailing edge, wherein the first leading edge faces
`
`the open end and the first trailing edge faces the closed end, and
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01786
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`wherein the length of the first leading edge, the length of the first
`
`trailing edge, and the size of the first angle define a first distribution
`
`of force in the outer wedge portion;
`
`an intermediate wedge portion formed in the interior between
`
`the outer wedge portion and the closed end, wherein the intermediate
`
`wedge portion comprises a second leading edge, a second trailing
`
`edge, and a second angle between the second leading edge and the
`
`second trailing edge, wherein the second leading edge faces the open
`
`end and the second trailing edge faces the closed end, and wherein the
`
`length of the second leading edge, the length of the second trailing
`
`edge, and the size of the second angle define a second distribution of
`
`force in the intermediate wedge portion; and
`
`an inner wedge portion formed in the interior between the
`
`intermediate wedge portion and the closed end, proximate to the
`
`closed end, wherein the inner wedge portion comprises a third leading
`
`edge, a third trailing edge, and a third angle first angle between the
`
`third leading edge and the third trailing edge, wherein the third
`
`leading edge faces the open end and the third trailing edge faces the
`
`closed end, and wherein the length of the third leading edge, the
`
`length of the third trailing edge, and the size of the third angle define a
`
`third distribution of force in the inner wedge portion,
`
`wherein the first trailing edge, the second trailing edge, and the
`
`third trailing edge differ in length such that during use a compressive
`
`load applied to the sucker rod at the inner wedge portion is greater
`
`than a compressive load applied to the sucker rod at the intermediate
`
`wedge portion, and the compressive load applied to the sucker rod at
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01786
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`the intermediate wedge portion is greater than a compressive load
`
`applied to the sucker rod at the outer wedge portion, such that
`
`compressive forces applied to the sucker rod at the closed end of the
`
`body exceed compressive forces at the open end of the body.
`
`Id. at Col. 27, ll. 57 – Col. 28, ll. 39.
`
`III. THE ASSERTED GROUNDS
`
`Petitioner challenges Claims 4, 6-8, 14, 15, 17, 21, 22, 35, 47, 50, 52, 57, 59,
`
`and 65-68 on the following grounds:
`
`Claim Challenged
`
`Basis
`
`4, 6-8, 14, 15, 17, 21, 22, 35, 47,
`52, 65-68
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`50, 57, 59
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`
`
`References
`U.S. Patent No. 6,193,431
`(“Rutledge ’431”);
`U.S. Patent No. 4,822,201
`(“Iwasaki”);
`U.S. Patent No. 4,401,396
`(“McKay”)
`Rutledge ’431;
`Iwasaki;
`McKay;
`U.S. Patent No. 4,653,953
`(“Anderson”)
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`
`Petitioner asserts four references to challenge Claims 4, 6-8, 14, 15, 17, 21,
`
`22, 35, 47, 50, 52, 57, 59, and 65-68 of the ’951 Patent. Despite not providing any
`
`rationale as to why or how one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to combine the asserted references, Petitioner challenges the claims of
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01786
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`the ’951 Patent by asserting the references as a group – only generally identifying
`
`alleged similarities of the references and not addressing the distinct differences in
`
`the disclosure of each reference preventing the references from being combined in
`
`an obviousness challenge. The following references are asserted by Petitioner.
`
`A. Rutledge ’431
`
`Rutledge ’431 discloses an end fitting for a sucker rod comprising a two
`
`wedge system defined by a specific structure that creates an even distribution of
`
`compressive forces along the end fitting. The Rutledge ‘431 structure is a single
`
`continuous curved surface that has no distinct edges wherein the curvature
`
`approaches the rod asymptotically. Rutledge ’431 does not disclose any specific
`
`ratio of lengths of wedge portions, or any distinction in different angles. The only
`
`novelty described in the only embodiment disclosed in Rutledge ’431 is the
`
`existence of a single asymptotic curve that creates the even distribution of stresses
`
`along the end fitting. Rutledge ’431’s only disclosed embodiment is depicted in
`
`Figure 25 below.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01786
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`
`Rutledge ’431, Figure 25
`
`
`The purpose, or intended use, of Rutledge ’431 is to create an even and
`
`smooth distribution of forces along the wedge system – the opposite of the claimed
`
`invention of the ’951 Patent. Specifically, the goal of Rutledge ’431 is to design
`
`sucker rod connectors that “achieve a smooth and continuous dispersal of forces
`
`along the rod-connector interface to avoid the concentration of forces thereon in
`
`excess of the rod strength.” See Exhibit [1003] at Col. 3, ll. 27-30 (emphasis
`
`added). The wedge acts “…(2) to disperse the destructive forces evenly throughout
`
`the rod/adhesive/metal interface.” Id. at Col. 3, ll. 50-52. Rutledge ’431 further
`
`states: “The desired effect of the wedges on the stress forces acting on them is to
`
`disperse the forces, not to concentrate them. The cross-sectional area of the sleeve
`
`must change as smoothly as possible so that compressive forces are dispersed
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01786
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`equally along the end of the rod, and not concentrated excessively at any
`
`portion of the rod.” Id. at Col. 8, ll. 47-52 (emphasis added).
`
`In addition to teaching the desirability of an even distribution of forces,
`
`Rutledge ’431 also provides data showing that its claimed wedge system is capable
`
`of equal distribution of stress but may also cause “a higher level of rod based stress
`
`toward the open end of the end fitting.” Ex. [1003] at Col 13, ll. 37-45 (emphasis
`
`added); see also FIGS. 8-10.
`
`Accordingly, the subject matter described and depicted in Rutledge ’431
`
`Patent functions in an opposite manner than the subject matter described and
`
`claimed in the ’951 Patent.
`
`The Test Results of Rutledge ’431’s end fitting show compressive forces
`
`greater at the open end of the end fitting. Rutledge ’431 discloses test results of its
`
`invention as compared
`
`to other configurations of end fitting designs.
`
`Rutledge ’431’s graphical analysis of stress distribution tests on its end fitting
`
`shows that the force is greater at the open end of the end fitting – the direct
`
`opposite of the claimed invention of the ’951 Patent. Rutledge ’431 identified its
`
`end fitting as Alpha in the tests. See Exhibit [1003] at Col. 12, ll. 24-42.
`
`Rutledge ’431 further defines the z-axis as the axial centerline of the end fitting.
`
`See annotated Fig. 7 below.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01786
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`In graphing
`
`the stress distribution across
`
`the
`
`rod/adhesive area,
`
`Rutledge ’431 depicts a generally uniform stress applied across the end fitting with
`
`a stress spike at the open end. See annotated Fig. 14 below of the Alpha design.
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 12
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01786
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`“To confirm that the stress distribution profile is accurate in each model, a
`
`comparison of observed stresses are detailed is [sic] ‘INTERNAL CENTERLINE
`
`AND EXTERIOR SURFACE,’ as illustrated in ilus. 20-22 (FIGS. 20-22,
`
`respectively).” See Exhibit [1003] at Col. 14, ll. 11-15. Rutledge further confirms
`
`that the force is greater at the open end of the end fitting: “The Alpha design, illus.
`
`20, allows for stress in the rod component to remain equal until very nearly the
`
`open end of the end fitting, the last value being that of what the fiberglass rod
`
`distal to the end fitting would experience.” Id. at Col. 14, ll. 15-18. Rutledge ’431
`
`FIG. 20 is reproduced below with annotations showing a greater force/stress
`
`occurring at the open end of the end fitting.
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 13
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01786
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`Rutledge ’431 discloses two possible results of force application to the
`
`described end fitting: 1) equal stress along the entire end fitting, or 2) a greater
`
`force at the open end of the end fitting than the closed end. Rutledge does not
`
`disclose a force distribution where the force/stress applied at the closed end is
`
`greater than the force/stress applied at the open end.
`
`B.
`
`Iwasaki
`
`Iwasaki discloses an end fitting design intended to create an even and
`
`uniform stress along the end fitting. Specifically, Iwasaki discloses an end fitting
`
`having “uniform frictional pressure,” “uniform axially directed stress,” and
`
`creating a design where “the axial stress is more uniform in magnitude.” See
`
`Exhibit [1007] at Col. 2, ll. 22-27; Col. 4, ll. 1-2. Similar to Rutledge ’431, Iwasaki
`
`teaches only a uniform distribution of stress along the entire end fitting.
`
`In addition, Iwasaki makes no mention of varying the angle between a
`
`leading edge and trailing edge. Iwasaki only contemplates modifying the angle of
`
`inclination, which does not necessarily affect the angle between a leading and
`
`trailing edge.
`
`C. McKay
`
`Similar to Rutledge ’431 and Iwasaki, McKay discloses an end fitting design
`
`intended to create an even stress load along the length of the end fitting.
`
`Specifically, McKay teaches to “minimize, if not eliminate, any likelihood of stress
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 14
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01786
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`risers occurring because of uneven loading,” “minimize stress concentration
`
`problems,” and to “reduc[e] the possibility of uneven loading.” See Exhibit [1012]
`
`at Col. 3, ll. 35-40, 66-68; Col. 4, l. 1. And similar to Iwasaki, McKay discloses a
`
`design in which the angles of inclination differ, but does not disclose, teach, or
`
`suggest modifying the angle between a leading edge and a trailing edge of a wedge
`
`portion.
`
`D. Anderson
`
`Anderson also discloses an end fitting design intended to create a uniform
`
`and even stress distribution across the entire end fitting. Specifically, Anderson
`
`discloses a configuration where the “angles [of the tapered surface] have been
`
`found to ‘even’ the stresses at each of the three rod/connector interfaces and
`
`thereby reduce the maximum equivalent stresses experienced.” See Exhibit [1018]
`
`at Col. 3, ll. 65-68. And similar to Iwasaki and McKay, Anderson discloses a
`
`design in which the angles of the taper differ, but does not disclose, teach, or
`
`suggest modifying the angle between a leading edge and a trailing edge of a wedge
`
`portion.
`
`
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Patent claims in an inter partes review of an unexpired patent must be given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction to one having ordinary skill in the art. 37
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 15
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01786
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., 793 F.3d 1268, 1278 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015) (“We conclude that Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard in enacting the AIA”). However, constructions under the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard “cannot be divorced from the
`
`specification” and prosecution history and “must be consistent with the one that
`
`those skilled in the art would reach.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d
`
`1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “A
`
`construction that is unreasonably broad and which does not reasonably reflect the
`
`plain language and disclosure will not pass muster” under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).1
`
`The Petition is required to identify “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be
`
`construed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3); see Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48756, 48763-64 (Aug. 14, 2012). Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s
`
`
`1 The broadest reasonable interpretation standard applicable in an IPR is different
`
`from
`
`the claim construction standards applicable
`
`in other proceedings.
`
`Accordingly, Finalrod expressly reserves the right to advocate different claim
`
`constructions under the applicable standards in other proceedings involving the
`
`’951 Patent, including district court proceedings currently pending between the
`
`parties.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 16
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01786
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`proposed constructions,
`
`including Petitioner’s constructions of “define a
`
`[first/second/third] distribution of force],” and “such that.”
`
`A. Definition of A Person Having Ordinary Skill In the Art
`
`The art of the ’951 Patent is limited to the field of fiberglass sucker rods. See
`
`e.g., Exhibit [1001] at Col. 1, ll. 15-20. A person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“PHOSITA”) for the subject matter of the ’951 Patent at the time of the invention
`
`would have had a Bachelor’s degree in an engineering discipline, such as
`
`mechanical or petroleum engineering, and at least four years’ experience in the
`
`design, development, testing, and use of fiberglass sucker rods and end fittings.
`
`Alternatively to formal education, a person of ordinary skill in the art