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 IPR2016-01827
`TITLE: SUCKER ROD APPARATUS AND METHOD
`Patent 9,045,951
`________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________________
`
`
`
`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 IPR2016-01827
`TITLE: SUCKER ROD APPARATUS AND METHOD
`Patent 9,045,951
`________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01827
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,045,951 .............................................. 2
`
`III.
`
`THE ASSERTED GROUNDS .......................................................................... 8
`
`IV.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART ............................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`Rutledge ’431............................................................................................. 9
`
`B.
`
`Iwasaki .....................................................................................................13
`
`C. McKay ......................................................................................................14
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................14
`
`A.
`
`Definition of A Person Having Ordinary Skill In the Art ..................16
`
`B.
`
`Disputed Claim Terms ...........................................................................17
`
`1. “determining distribution… of compressive force” ..................................17
`
`2. “to bias distribution of compressive force” .............................................19
`
`3. “confining…to distribute” .......................................................................21
`
`VI.
`
`PETITIONER FAILED TO SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THE
`
`PETITIONER WOULD PREVAIL ................................................................23
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner is Attempting to Shift the Burden to Patent Owner to
`
`Prove Patentability .................................................................................23
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01827
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Fails to Provide a Rationale to Combine the Asserted
`
`References ................................................................................................25
`
`1. Petitioner Fails to Identify the Differences Between the Asserted Prior
`
`Art and the Claimed Invention of the ’951 Patent ...................................28
`
`2. Petitioner Has Not Provided Motivation to Modify Rutledge ’431 .........29
`
`3. The Problem Petitioner Relies on as Motivation to Look to Iwasaki and
`
`McKay is Addressed by Rutledge ’431 ....................................................33
`
`C.
`
`Rutledge ’431 Teaches Away From the Claimed Invention of the ’951
`
`Patent .......................................................................................................36
`
`D.
`
`The Petition Should Be Denied Because the Same Prior Art Asserted
`
`in the Petition Was Previously Presented to the USPTO ...................37
`
`E.
`
`Claims 60-63 and 69 are not Unpatentable as obvious over Rutledge
`
`’431 in view of Iwasaki and McKay ......................................................40
`
`1. All Claim Limitations Should Be Given Full Weight ..............................40
`
`2. The Combination of Rutledge ’431, Iwasaki, and McKay Fails to
`
`Disclose, Suggest, or Teach At Least the Following Claim Limitations: 44
`
`VII.
`
`CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED...................................................54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`ii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2016-01827
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Agilent Tech., Inc v. Affymetrix, Inc.,
`
`567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .....................................................................46
`
`Becton, Dickinson, and Co. v. One StockDuq Holdings, LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00235, Paper No. 10 .......................................................................46
`
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`
`610 Fed.Appx. 997 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................18
`
`Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc.,
`
`661 F.3d 629 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................46
`
`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 .......................................................................34
`
`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) .....................................................................36
`
`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) ...........................................................................................26
`
`Hitzeman v. Rutter,
`
`243 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .....................................................................46
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .....................................................................15
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01827
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`In re Fulton,
`
`391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .....................................................................36
`
`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) .............................................................41
`
`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) .....................................................................24
`
`In re Nuvasive, Inc.
`
`– F.3d – (Fed. Cir. December 7, 2016), 2016 WL 7118526 .........................29
`
`In re Ratti,
`
`270 F.2d 810, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959).................................................32
`
`In re Robertson,
`
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................45
`
`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) .....................................................................26
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`
`550 U.S. 398 (2007).......................................................................................27
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01827
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .....................................................................15
`
`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) .....................................................................18
`
`Runway Safe LLC v. Engineered Arresting Systems,
`
`IPR2015-01921, Paper No. 9 (February 29, 2016) .......................................35
`
`Secor View Tech. LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc.,
`
`2013 WL 6147788 (D.N.J. November 21, 2013) ..........................................40
`
`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) .....................................................................27
`
`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) .....................................................................41
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C § 103 .........................................................................................................28
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ....................................................................................................1, 23
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ...................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`v
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01827
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48763-64 (Aug. 14, 2012) ......................................................15
`
`MPEP § 2112 ...........................................................................................................45
`
`MPEP § 2143.01 ......................................................................................................31
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..............................................................................................15
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ..........................................................................................15
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ............................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d) ................................................................................................54
`
`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 elements 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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01827
`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.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01827
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`the ability to stretch in an axial direction, such that each stroke of a pump jack can
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01827
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01827
`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, reproduced above,
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01827
`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 60 is an illustrative claim of the ’951 Patent:
`
`60. An end fitting for a fiber composite 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;
`
`the wedge system comprising an outer wedge portion formed in the interior
`
`proximate the open end, the outer wedge portion configured to distribute
`
`compressive force in the sucker rod proximate the open end, the outer wedge
`
`portion
`
`in cross-section having a
`
`respective outer wedge
`
`triangular
`
`configuration, the outer wedge triangular configuration comprising an outer
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01827
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`leading edge extending between the open end and an outer trailing edge, the
`
`outer leading edge intersecting the outer trailing edge at a respective outer
`
`vertex characterized by a respective outer vertex angle, the outer wedge
`
`triangular configuration comprising an imaginary outer triangle base opposite
`
`the outer vertex, the outer wedge triangular configuration determining
`
`distribution by the outer wedge portion of compressive force in the sucker rod
`
`proximate the open end;
`
`the wedge system comprising an inner wedge portion formed in the interior
`
`proximate the closed end, the inner wedge portion configured to distribute
`
`compressive force in the sucker rod proximate the closed end, the inner wedge
`
`portion
`
`in cross-section having a
`
`respective
`
`inner wedge
`
`triangular
`
`configuration, the inner wedge triangular configuration comprising an inner
`
`leading edge extending between the closed end and an inner trailing edge, the
`
`inner leading edge intersecting the inner trailing edge at a respective inner
`
`vertex characterized by a respective inner vertex angle, the inner wedge
`
`triangular configuration comprising an imaginary inner triangle base opposite
`
`the inner vertex, the inner wedge triangular configuration determining
`
`distribution by the inner wedge portion of compressive force in the sucker rod
`
`proximate the closed end; and
`
`the inner wedge triangular configuration differing from the outer wedge
`
`triangular configuration to bias distribution of compressive force in the sucker
`
`rod at the end fitting during use, the outer wedge triangular configuration
`
`confining the outer wedge portion to distribute relatively less compressive force
`
`in the sucker rod proximate the open end than distributed by the inner wedge
`
`portion in the sucker rod proximate the closed end, the inner wedge geometric
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01827
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`configuration confining the inner wedge portion to distribute relatively more
`
`compressive force in the sucker rod proximate the closed end than distributed
`
`by the outer wedge portion in the sucker rod proximate the open end.
`
`Id. at Col. 32, ll. 22 – Col. 33, ll. 3.
`
`III. THE ASSERTED GROUNDS
`
`Petitioner challenges Claims 60-63 and 69 on the following grounds:
`
`Claim Challenged
`
`Basis
`
`60-63, 69
`
`§ 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”)
`
`
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`
`Petitioner asserts three references to challenge Claims 60-63 and 69 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 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.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01827
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`Rutledge ’431, Figure 25
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01827
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`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 “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 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.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01827
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the subject matter described and depicted in Rutledge ’431
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01827
`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.
`
`
`
`“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
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01827
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`FIG. 20 is reproduced below with annotations showing a greater force/stress
`
`occurring at the open end of the end fitting.
`
`
`
`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
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01827
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`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
`
`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, ll. 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.
`
`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 | 14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01827
`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 Petitioner 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, Patent Owner 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 | 15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01827
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`proposed constructions of “determining distribution…of compressive force,” “to
`
`bias distribution of compressive force,” and “confining…to distribute.”
`
`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 for the ’951
`
`Patent would have had at least 10 years of experience in the design, development,
`
`testing, and use of fiberglass sucker rods and end fittings. Accordingly, this
`
`definition of the level of skill in the art should be adopted in this proceeding.
`
`The Petition’s proffered definition of a skilled artisan improperly includes
`
`individuals with no experience in designing, developing, and using fiberglass
`
`sucker rods. See e.g., Petition at p. 7; Exhibit [1010] at 40. Petitioner’s definition
`
`fails to account for the significant distinctions between fiberglass sucker rods, and
`
`sucker rods in general, such as steel sucker rods. Design considerations and
`
`constraints of end fittings for fiberglass sucker rods are significantly different in
`
`that steel sucker rods do not suffer the same problems as fiberglass sucker rods,
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`P a g e | 16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01827
`U.S. Patent No. 9,045,951
`
`
`
`such as the concern of distributing forces to prevent a build-up of compressive
`
`force that pinch the rod off the end fitting.
`
`B. Disputed Claim Terms
`
`1. “determining distribution… of compressive force”
`
`Petitioner argues that the term “determining distribution…of compressive
`
`force,” as found in claims 60 and 63, should be construed to mean “impact the
`
`distribution of forces.” Petition at 14. Patent Owner disagrees. Petitioner’s
`
`proposed construction is improper because it ignores the claim language itself,
`
`which clearly states that the compressive force applied to the sucker rod is
`
`determined by – rather than merely impacted or influenced by – the wedges’
`
`triangular configuration. See Exhibit [1001] at Col. 32, ll. 38-41 and 54-57 (in
`
`independent claim 60, the “triangular configuration
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
