`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`
`REACTIVE SURFACES LTD, LLP
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`Case: IPR2016-01914
`
`Patent No. 8,394,618 B2
`
`___________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ERIC RAY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,394,618 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE .............................................................. 3
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .............................................................................. 5
`
`ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`Latent print visibility ........................................................................ 11
`
`Previous literature using lipase to remove fingerprints by
`vaporization ..................................................................................... 13
`
`POSITA aware of forensic research as part of prior art ..................... 14
`
`Vaporization vs. evaporation ............................................................ 16
`
`Transfer of residue from the skin to a surface .................................. 17
`
`Visibility of fingerprint residue due to lighting .................................. 19
`
`Visibility of fingerprint residue due to the surface ............................ 23
`
`Changes in visibility due to water vaporization ................................. 24
`
`Visibility of fingerprint residue due to residue .................................. 25
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`ATTACHMENTS:
`
`A. Curriculum vitae of Eric Ray
`
`B. Ramotowski, R. S. (2001). Composition of Latent Print Residue. In H. C. Lee,
`& R. E. Gaensslen (Eds.), Advances in Fingerprint Technology (2nd ed.).
`Boca Raton: CRC Press. pp. 63-104. (Ex. 1037)
`
`C. Olsen, R. D. (1978). Scott's Fingerprint Mechanics. Springfield: Charles C.
`Thomas. pp. 109-158. (Ex. 1038)
`
`D. Mong, G. M., Petersen, C. E., & Clauss, T. R. (1999). Advanced Fingerprint
`Analysis Report: Fingerprint Constituents. Pacific Northwest National
`Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland. (Ex. 2013)
`
`E. Thomas, G. L., Reynoldson, T. E. (1975). Some observations on fingerprint
`deposits. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 8(6), 724-729. (Ex. 1039)
`
`F. Rose, A., Rose, E. (1966) “The Condensed Chemical Dictionary (7th ed.). New
`York: Reinhold Publishing Co. pp. 80, 104, 222-223, 545, 556, 644-645, 691,
`704, 716, 887, 891. (Ex. 1040)
`
`G. Federal Bureau of Investigations. (1986). The Science of Fingerprints (Rev.
`12-84). Department of Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
`Office. pp. 170-174, 211. (Ex. 1041)
`
`H. Kent, T. (Ed.). (2001). Manual of Fingerprint Development Techniques (2nd
`ed.). Sandridge: Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch.
`Sections 1.1, 1.2, 2.6, and “Visual Examination”. (Ex. 1042)
`
`I.
`
`Bobev, K. (1995). Fingerprints and factors affecting their condition. Journal
`of Forensic Identification, 45(2), 176-183. (Ex. 1043)
`
`J. Bleay, S. M., Sears, V. G., Bandey, H. L., Gibson, A. P., Bowman, V. J.,
`Downham, R., . . . Selway, C. (2013). Fingerprint Source Book: manual of
`development techniques. London: Home Office - Centre for Applied
`Sciences and Technology. Chapter 2. (Ex. 1044)
`http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fingerprint-source-book
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`K. Scruton, B., Robins, B. W., & Blott, B. H. (1975). The deposition of fingerprint
`films. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 8(6), 714-723. (Ex. 1045)
`
`L. Olsen, R. D. (1987, Feb). Chemical dating techniques for latent fingerprints:
`a preliminary report. Identification News, 10-12. (Ex. 1046)
`
`M. Craig, B. M. (1953). Refractive indices of some saturated and monoethenoid
`fatty acids and methyl esters. Canadian Journal of Chemistry, 31(5), 499-
`504. (Ex. 1047)
`
`N. Dorinson, A., McCorkle, M. R., & Ralston, A. W. (1942). Refractive indices
`and densities of normal saturated fatty acids in the liquid state. Journal of
`the American Chemical Society, 64(12), 2739-2741. (Ex. 1048)
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Eric Ray. Since 2007, I have been employed as a Forensic Scientist
`
`in the Latent Print Unit of the Arizona Department of Public Safety Scientific
`
`Analysis Bureau. In that position I routinely process items of evidence to
`
`visualize and capture fingerprints from a wide variety of items. Subsequently,
`
`I routinely compare them to exemplar (known) fingerprints of suspects and
`
`victims or enter the fingerprint images for search through an Automated
`
`Fingerprint Identification System (“AFIS”). Finally, I will occasionally be called
`
`to testify to my examination and opinion in court. I am also the owner of Ray
`
`Forensics and work as a trainer of other forensic professionals and as a
`
`consultant on fingerprint matters. Specific details of my education,
`
`employment, publications, expert testimony, and training received are
`
`provided in Attachment A.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to research and to give my opinion on fingerprint issues as
`
`they relate to U.S. Patent No. 8,394,618 B2 entitled “LIPASE-CONTAINING
`
`POLYMERIC COATINGS FOR THE FACILITATED REMOVAL OF FINGERPRINTS
`
`(“the ‘618 Patent” [Ex. 1001]) in Petition for Inter Partes Review of the ‘618
`
`Patent which requests the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) to review
`
`and cancel Claims 1-11 of the ‘618 Patent.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`3.
`
`In this declaration I will discuss fingerprint topics related to the ‘618 Patent,
`
`including an overview of those topics as it was known prior to the filing of
`
`U.S. application 12/820,063 (“the ‘063 Application”) from which the ‘618
`
`Patent issued. My understanding is that the effective filing date of the ‘063
`
`Application is June 21, 2010. My opinions are based on my knowledge and
`
`experience in the fingerprint field and references published prior to that date
`
`that discuss components of fingerprint residue, the visibility of fingerprint
`
`residue, and the degradation, oxidation, and vaporization of fingerprint
`
`residue as it relates to the ‘618 Patent.
`
`4.
`
`I have based this declaration on information currently available to me. If
`
`additional information becomes available, I reserve the right to continue my
`
`investigation and study, which may include a review of documents,
`
`additional information, or testimony from depositions.
`
`5. My opinions have been formed upon my experience and knowledge in the
`
`fingerprint field, the references cited in this document that were relevant
`
`and available prior art as of June 21, 2010, and other documents related to
`
`the IPR2016-01914 proceeding that have been provided to me. Documents
`
`from the IPR2016-01914 proceeding include Patent Owner’s Response, U.S.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,394,618 (Ex. 1001), Barnett (Ex. 2011), Buchanan et al. (Ex.
`
`1013), Craig (Ex. 2015), Mong (Ex. 2013), and Dordick Declaration (Ex. 2010).
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`
`6.
`
`I earned a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Arizona in 2000
`
`with a double major in Biochemistry and Molecular & Cellular Biology.
`
`7.
`
`I have authored peer reviewed journal articles in the fingerprint discipline
`
`and have given numerous lectures, workshops, and classes to other forensic
`
`professionals on a wide variety of topics. I am an internationally recognized
`
`expert in the fingerprint discipline presenting at conferences and classes
`
`across the U.S. and in Europe and Asia.
`
`8.
`
`Along with Dr. Glenn Langenburg, I have co-hosted a podcast on fingerprint
`
`topics on an almost weekly basis since 2013. On the Double Loop Podcast
`
`Glenn and I discuss research papers, analyze court cases and decisions, and
`
`interview forensic practitioners and researchers.
`
`9.
`
`I served as a member of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
`
`(“NIST”) Organization for Scientific Area Committees (“OSAC”) Friction Ridge
`
`Subcommittee from 2014 to 2016 developing standards for the fingerprint
`
`discipline. I also served as a member of the standards development
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`organization, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (“AAFS”) Academy
`
`Standards Board (“ASB”) in 2016.
`
`10.
`
`I have been an Active Member of the International Association for
`
`Identification (“IAI”) since 2008 and a Certified Latent Print Examiner
`
`(“CLPE”) through that organization since 2010. Since 2013, I have served on
`
`the Editorial Board of the IAI’s peer reviewed publication, the Journal of
`
`Forensic Identification. From 2012 to 2014 I served as a member of the IAI
`
`Special Committee on Latent Print Probability Modeling and then chaired
`
`that Special Committee from 2014 to 2016.
`
`11. With the Arizona Identification Council (“AIC”), the Arizona division of the
`
`IAI, I have served as the webmaster, treasurer, and a member of the board
`
`of directors.
`
`12.
`
`In specific relation to the ‘618 Patent, I have experience and knowledge in
`
`the composition of fingerprint residue, the development or visualization of
`
`fingerprint residue, the history of research in the fingerprint field, and the
`
`current and historical standard terminology of the field. My services in this
`
`case are being provided through ForensisGroup Inc., whose offices are
`
`located at 301 N. Lake Ave. Suite 420 Pasadena, CA 91101-5119 (626-795-
`
`5000). ForensisGroup Inc. is being compensated at a rate of $250 per hour.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`The compensation is not contingent upon my performance, the outcome of
`
`this inter partes review or any other proceeding, or any issues involved in or
`
`related to this inter partes review. I am not an employee of any party in this
`
`case and have no financial stake in the ‘618 Patent or in the outcome of any
`
`proceeding related to the ‘618 Patent. My compensation is not dependent
`
`on my opinions in this matter.
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`13. Contrary to the Patent Owner Response (pp. 1, 4, 9, 28, 31-36) and Dr.
`
`Dordick’s opinion (Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 51, 56), the term “latent print” is applied to
`
`any chance or unintentional impression left by the friction ridge skin. A
`
`“latent print” is comprised of residue that may be visible or invisible to the
`
`naked eye depending on the viewer, surface, residue, and
`
`lighting
`
`conditions. Further, the term “patent print” is only applied to chance or
`
`unintentional
`
`impressions
`
`left by the friction ridge skin where the
`
`transferred material is readily visible (e.g. blood, ink, paint, etc.).
`
`14. Contrary to Dr. Dordick’s statement (Ex 2010 ¶ 54), and the Patent Owner
`
`Response (p. 33) that states e.g., “A POSITA seeking to design a method for
`
`making patent fingerprints less visually apparent to the naked eye would
`
`have no reason to consult forensics literature on problems with developing
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`and visualizing
`
`latent
`
`fingerprints using conventional crime scene
`
`investigation techniques,” a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`researching the removal or vaporization of fingerprints (i.e., impressions left
`
`by the friction ridge skin) from a surface would find the long list of references
`
`from Ramotowski (Attachment B, Ex. 1037, pp. 95-104) on the components
`
`of fingerprint residue, the degradation and oxidation of fingerprint residue,
`
`and research into the vaporization of fingerprint residue from forensic and
`
`non-forensic fields pertinent to their work. Further, a POSITA researching any
`
`aspect of fingerprints or developing products directed to constituent
`
`chemical components within fingerprints would rely upon forensic research
`
`information as it would provide a foundation into the prior art related to the
`
`components of fingerprint residue, the visibility of fingerprints, and the
`
`degradation, oxidation, and vaporization of fingerprint residue.
`
`15.
`
`Fingerprint residue undergoes changes after it is deposited on a surface due
`
`to degradation, oxidation, and vaporization. However, while fingerprint
`
`residue components may be changed by degradation and oxidation and this
`
`affects the visibility of the residue, the fingerprint residue leaves the surface
`
`solely by vaporization. Dr. Dordick (Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 38, 42, 88) incorrectly
`
`attempts to distinguish between vaporization and evaporation. The only
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`type of vaporization that is not also evaporation is boiling. Therefore, in the
`
`context of the ‘618 Patent and the removal of fingerprint residue from a
`
`surface, vaporization and evaporation are synonymous. Further, Dr. Dordick
`
`(Ex. 2010 ¶ 37) errs in asserting that a POSITA reviewing forensic research
`
`would not have concluded that fingerprints vaporize.
`
`16. When friction ridge skin comes into contact with a surface, residue is
`
`transferred from the skin to the surface. This residue is typically comprised
`
`of various amounts of eccrine sweat, sebaceous material, and/or external
`
`contaminants depending upon a person’s age and environmental
`
`interactions. Throughout the rest of this declaration, unless otherwise
`
`stated, I will be referring to fingerprint residue as the mixture of eccrine
`
`sweat, sebaceous material, and/or external contaminants transferred onto a
`
`surface that the ‘618 Patent refers to as the “fingerprint” that is being
`
`“removed”. The volume of residue that transfers is largely dependent on the
`
`amount and type of residue on the skin, the texture and temperature of the
`
`surface, and the electrostatic forces of the skin-surface-residue system.
`
`17. Contrary to Dr. Dordick’s opinion (Ex. 2010 ¶ 35) and statements in the
`
`Patent Owner Response (pp. 4, 28, 32, 33), fingerprint residue is frequently
`
`visible to the naked eye under certain conditions. Fingerprint examiners
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`routinely utilize different lighting conditions to visualize fingerprint residue
`
`and have done so for decades. Transmitted lighting, specular illumination,
`
`and oblique lighting are common techniques to aid the fingerprint expert in
`
`seeing the fingerprint residue with the naked eye and in capturing the image
`
`of the fingerprint with a camera. Common interior and exterior light sources
`
`(e.g. sunlight, incandescent lighting, fluorescent lighting, etc.) can replicate
`
`the transmitted, specular, or oblique illumination and result in fingerprint
`
`residue becoming more visible to the naked eye. A POSITA investigating the
`
`visibility of fingerprint residue and its subsequent removal would readily find
`
`literature documenting the long-standing use of natural and/or simulated
`
`lighting conditions to visualize fingerprint residue.
`
`18.
`
`Smooth, non-porous surfaces (e.g. smooth glass, touchscreens, smooth
`
`plastic) tend to promote the visibility of fingerprint residue. A lack of texture
`
`results in at least portions the residue spreading into a continuous thin film
`
`with a lower contact angle between the residue and the surface. Fingerprint
`
`residue is readily visible under conditions that provide contrast between the
`
`residue and the surface (e.g. color, reflectivity). Contrary to Dr. Dordick’s
`
`position (Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 51, 56), fingerprint residue (i.e. a “latent print”) is
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`visible to the naked eye under certain conditions of the viewer, surface,
`
`residue, lighting conditions.
`
`19. Olsen (Attachment C, Ex. 1038, p. 121-122 under “Environmental Factors”),
`
`Mong (Attachment D, Ex. 2013, pp. 8, 12), and Thomas (Attachment E, Ex.
`
`1039, p. 726) clearly show that fingerprint residue deteriorates and degrades
`
`over time. Initially, the water portion of fingerprint residue vaporizes
`
`depending on atmospheric temperature and humidity. The water portion of
`
`fingerprint residue is visible under certain conditions. This again contradicts
`
`the Patent Owner’s Response (pp. 1, 9, 28, 32) and Dr. Dordick’s position (Ex.
`
`2010 ¶ 35) that fingerprint residue (i.e. a “latent print”) is not visible to the
`
`naked eye, but must be detected by some artificial method at a crime scene
`
`(Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 51, 52, 56, 84).
`
`20. Ramotowski (Attachment B, pp. 85-91) also summarizes several groups,
`
`including Mong (Ex. 2013) (see Attachment B at pp. 87 and 101), researching
`
`the degradation, oxidation, and vaporization of the lipid components of
`
`fingerprint residue. Unsaturated compounds and compounds with higher
`
`molecular weight are oxidized or degraded into saturated compounds or
`
`lower molecular weight compounds. Ramotowski (Attachment B, pp. 76,
`
`Table 3.5, 86, 88) describes that these lipid components of fingerprint
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`residue are being changed by bacterial and epidermal lipases and are also
`
`being oxidized. These fingerprint residue components will eventually leave
`
`the surface by vaporization after they are degraded or oxidized into more
`
`volatile compounds. Therefore Dr. Dordick errs in attempting to distinguish
`
`vaporization of fingerprint residue from evaporation or oxidation as separate
`
`pathways that lead to the removal of fingerprint residue components (Ex.
`
`2010 ¶ 88).
`
`21.
`
`The compounds that are more prevalent in fresh fingerprint residue (e.g.
`
`squalene, cholesterol, oleic acid) tend to have a pale or faint yellow color
`
`while compounds that are more prevalent in aged fingerprint residue (e.g.
`
`stearic acid, lauric acid) tend to have a white color or no color listed in the
`
`literature (Attachment F, Ex. 1040, pp. 887, 222, 223, 691, 891, 545). This
`
`color difference at least partially contributes to the reduced visibility of
`
`fingerprint residue as components are oxidized into saturated or lower
`
`molecular weight compounds. The visibility of fingerprint residue is also at
`
`least partially due to the tendency of a mixture with higher concentrations
`
`of squalene, oleic acid, and palmitoleic acid to remain in the liquid phase.
`
`This yet again contradicts Dr. Dordick’s position that fingerprint residue (i.e.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`a “latent print”) is not visible to the naked eye, but must be detected by some
`
`artificial method at a crime scene (Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 51, 52, 56, 84).
`
`IV.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`A. Latent print visibility
`
`22.
`
`The skin of the palmar surfaces of the fingers and palms and the plantar
`
`surfaces of the feet is thicker than the skin of the rest of the body and is
`
`comprised of an organized series of ridges. Pores of eccrine sweat glands are
`
`located along these ridges. Secretions from these pores along with material
`
`transferred to the friction ridge skin from other areas of the body and from
`
`external sources are often transferred to touched surfaces. The fingerprint
`
`residue left behind on a surface is commonly known as a “latent print”.
`
`23.
`
`In 1978 Olsen (Attachment C, p. 114) clearly stated that “[t]he word latent
`
`means “hidden” or not visible or apparent, but the word in a strict sense has
`
`no such limited application in the experiences of the fingerprint technician. In
`
`modern police usage, the term latent is applied to all chance or unintentional
`
`impressions.” Further, Olsen describes that latent fingerprints may be visible
`
`or invisible (Attachment C, p. 114) and that invisible fingerprints is often
`
`viewed with a strong light (Attachment C, p. 130). To summarize, a “latent
`
`print” is not inherently visible or invisible but is any impression of the friction
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`ridges skin (except for exemplar or known impressions taken digitally or in
`
`ink) and is visible or invisible depending on a number of factors (discussed
`
`further below). Dr. Dordick (Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 51, 56) and the Patent Owner
`
`Response (p. 1, 4, 9, 28, 31-36) repeatedly err in attempting to classify “latent
`
`prints” as always invisible and “fingerprints” or “patent prints” as always
`
`being visible.
`
`24.
`
`The term “patent print” is typically used to describe fingerprints comprised
`
`solely of readily visible external contaminants (e.g. blood, paint, ink). The
`
`Federal Bureau of Investigations went so far as to describe a “patent print”
`
`as a type of “latent print” (Attachment G, 1041, p. 173). It is my opinion that
`
`the only useful differentiation between “visible” and “invisible” latent prints
`
`is when the transferred material is comprised of some other material (e.g.
`
`blood, paint, ink) that is plainly visible.
`
`25.
`
`The Patent Owner’s Response (pp. 1, 4, 9, 28, 31-36) and Dr. Dordick (Ex.
`
`2010 ¶¶ 51, 56) repeatedly refer to “latent prints” as being inherently
`
`invisible prior to being detected. It
`
`is my opinion that this
`
`is a
`
`misunderstanding of the nature of fingerprint residue and a misuse of the
`
`terms “latent print” and “patent print”.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Previous
`
`literature using
`
`lipase to remove
`
`fingerprints by
`
`vaporization
`
`26. Dr. Dordick insists that if a POSITA had been aware of “forensic-related
`
`literature at the time of the ‘618 Patent’s filing, [it] would not have led a
`
`POSITA in bioactive coatings to have considered using lipase to facilitate the
`
`removal of a fingerprint on a coating by vaporization” (Ex. 2010 ¶ 54). It is
`
`my opinion that a POSITA researching the components, visibility, or removal
`
`of fingerprint residue from a surface would have had a familiarity with
`
`multiple aspects of this research, including forensic research. It is my opinion
`
`that it would have been useful to such POSITA to refer to the writings of
`
`forensic professionals who are routinely concerned with the components
`
`and visibility of fingerprints residue and the reasons why this residue would
`
`be removed or less visible from a surface and to the published articles from
`
`chemistry, physics, and other fields that all touch on these topics.
`
`27.
`
`Even a basic review of forensic literature would have led a POSITA to Lee and
`
`Gaensslen’s “Advances in Fingerprint Technology” and Ramotowski’s chapter
`
`therein on “Composition of Latent Print Residue” (Attachment B). Here
`
`Ramotowski notes that “Lipolysis by enzymes derived from the epidermis or
`
`bacteria present in skin surface debris from human skin has a tendency to
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`break down triglycerides and methyl esters” (Attachment B, p. 76). This same
`
`chapter discusses methyl esters as fingerprint components and triglycerides
`
`as a latent print component (Attachment B, pp. 86, 89-90). In the same
`
`chapter he refers to research into bacterial lipases in fingerprint residue and
`
`their role in the production of fatty acids (Attachment B, pp. 76, Table 3.5,
`
`86). Throughout this chapter, Ramotowski references numerous prior
`
`publications regarding lipase activity or lipolysis in fingerprint residue
`
`(Attachment B, pp. 76, Table 3.5, 86). It is my opinion that a POSITA
`
`researching fingerprint residue and its composition, visibility, or removal
`
`from surfaces would have consulted this bestselling book on fingerprints.
`
`These multiple mentions of lipases and lipolysis of fingerprint residue in Lee
`
`and Gaensslen’s book chapter by Ramotowski (Attachment B) lead me to
`
`conclude that, when the ‘063 Application was filed, the fingerprint field was
`
`aware of the roll of lipases in the degradation and subsequent vaporization
`
`of fingerprint residue.
`
`C.
`
`POSITA aware of forensic research as part of prior art
`
`28. Contrary to Dr. Dordick’s statement that “even if a POSITA in bioactive
`
`coatings had been aware of Buchanan and other forensic-related literature
`
`at the time of the ‘618 Patent’s filing, Buchanan would not have led a POSITA
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`in bioactive coatings to have considered using lipase to facilitate the removal
`
`of a fingerprint on a coating by vaporization (Ex 2010 ¶ 54), and the Patent
`
`Owner Response that “[a] POSITA seeking to design a method for making
`
`patent fingerprints less visually apparent to the naked eye would have no
`
`reason to consult forensics literature” (p. 33), it is my opinion that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art researching the removal or vaporization of
`
`fingerprints from a surface should be aware of the long list of references
`
`from Ramotowski (Attachment B, 95-104) on the components of fingerprint
`
`residue, the degradation and oxidation of fingerprint residue, and the
`
`vaporization of fingerprint residue from forensic and non-forensic fields.
`
`29. Dr. Dordick states that “other forensic-related literature available at the time
`
`of the ‘618 Patent filing would have showed that[sic] POSITA that many other
`
`factors besides vaporization
`
`could have explained
`
`the alleged
`
`“disappearance” of prepubescent children’s fingerprints” (Ex 2010 ¶ 38). He
`
`goes on to state that the “other factors” include: a) “that prepubescent
`
`children’s fingerprints include mostly aqueous saline and lack a significant
`
`amount of oily material”; b) “that water is lost from a fingerprint over time”;
`
`c) “that the enhanced clarity of a conventionally dusted fingerprint is the
`
`result of the original quality of the fingerprint and not the result of changes
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`to the fingerprint over time”; and d) “that a fingerprint undergoes physical
`
`and chemical changes through several different pathways besides
`
`vaporization”. Regarding a), fingerprint residue will vaporize over time
`
`whether the fingerprint residue is comprised of aqueous saline which
`
`vaporizes quickly or oily material whose decomposition products vaporize
`
`more slowly. Regarding b), water is lost from fingerprint residue due to
`
`vaporization. Regarding c), the initial clarity of a dusted fingerprint is at least
`
`partially the result of the original composition of the residue but the clarity
`
`of a dusted aged fingerprint is clearly also due to changes to the fingerprint
`
`residue over time. Regarding d), while other oxidation and degradation
`
`changes occur to the components of fingerprint residue, these components
`
`are also always undergoing vaporization to a greater or lesser degree. It is
`
`my opinion that other forensic and non-forensic references would assist a
`
`POSITA in understanding the composition, visibility, and removal of
`
`fingerprint residue from a surface.
`
`D.
`
`Vaporization vs. evaporation
`
`30. Vaporization is the phase transition of a compound from a liquid to a gaseous
`
`state. Evaporation is a type of vaporization where the transition occurs at the
`
`surface of the liquid and at a temperature below the boiling point. Dr.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Dordick (Ex. 2010 ¶ 38) implies that there is meaningful distinction between
`
`vaporization and evaporation. In regards to the issues discussed as part of
`
`the ‘618 Patent, all of the vaporization is also evaporation as it is occurring
`
`below the boiling point. It is my opinion that this attempted distinction in
`
`this matter is meaningless as a POSITA should be well aware.
`
`31. Dr. Dordick states that “even if a POSITA in the field of the ‘618 Patent had
`
`consulted Buchanan and other literature from the unrelated field of forensics
`
`and crime solving, the POSITA would not have concluded that fingerprints
`
`vaporize.” (Ex. 2010 at ¶ 37) Many sources
`
`including Ramotowski
`
`(Attachment B, p. 87) and Mong (Attachment D, p. 12) discuss the loss of
`
`fingerprint residue through evaporation (vaporization). Further, Thomas
`
`(Attachment E, p. 726) discusses the evaporation of the volatile components
`
`of fingerprint residue.
`
`E.
`
`Transfer of residue from the skin to a surface
`
`32. When friction ridge skin from the fingers or palms comes into contact with a
`
`surface, there is typically a transfer of materials. The chemical composition
`
`of this material is typically composed primarily of water but also typically
`
`includes many compounds found in eccrine sweat, sebum, and/or external
`
`contaminants (Attachment B, pp. 85-91, Attachment H, Ex. 1042, ¶ 1.2.1, and
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`see Tables 2 and 3 below). However, as Ramotowski notes, “Knowing the
`
`precise contents of the various skin glands does not accurately represent the
`
`nature of what is actually secreted onto substrates from the fingers and
`
`palms. In operational scenarios, numerous contaminants are present in the
`
`fingerprint deposit,
`
`including material from other glands, cosmetics,
`
`perfumes, and food residues. In addition, the secreted material is almost
`
`immediately altered by oxidative and bacterial degradation mechanisms”
`
`(Attachment B, p. 64).
`
`33. Bobev (Attachment I, Ex. 1043, pp. 176-177) summarizes how the transfer of
`
`these compounds depends mainly on the composition of the residue being
`
`transferred and the nature of the surface being touched. In general terms,
`
`the friction ridge skin has a thin film of sebum and external contaminants
`
`over the entire surface with periodic secretions of eccrine sweat from pores
`
`on the ridges. Fatty secretions have a greater tendency to be transferred to
`
`surfaces cooler than the body. Additionally, rougher surfaces tend to
`
`increase the adhesion forces resulting in more material being transferred.
`
`Finally, electrostatic forces have an effect mainly on the transfer of eccrine
`
`sweat which is mainly comprised of water and dissolved ions. As Olsen notes
`
`(Attachment C, p. 121), contaminants on the hands or the touched surface
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`may prevent the transfer of fingerprint residue. A larger volume of
`
`transferred material tends to be more visible on a surface. It is my opinion
`
`that the knowledge of forensic professionals and researchers is extremely
`
`valuable and relevant and must be included by a POSITA conducting research
`
`in fingerprint residue components, visibility, and removal.
`
`F.
`
`Visibility of fingerprint residue due to lighting
`
`34. Once the fingerprint residue has been transferred onto a surface, visibility of
`
`that residue is affected by lighting, characteristics of the surface, and
`
`characteristics of the residue. As the U.K. Manual of Fingerprint
`
`Development Techniques (Attachment H, ¶ 2.6.5) discusses in its section on
`
`visible finger marks, these marks are often visible under diffuse lighting but
`
`can also become more visible when viewed under transmitted lighting,
`
`specular illumination, or oblique illumination. It is well known that normal
`
`lighting (e.g. sunlight, incandescent light, fluorescent light) will provide the
`
`necessary illumination to see fingerprint residue with the naked eye under
`
`certain circumstances. The U.K. Manual of Fingerprint Development
`
`Techniques describes how daylight, lamps, and the angle of illumination
`
`assist in visualizing fingerprint residue (Attachment H, ¶ 7.2).
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`35.
`
`In any lighting condition the finger marks are generally more visible when
`
`more material
`
`is transferred. Figures 1-3 (below) represent
`
`lighting
`
`techniques from the fingerprint field that have long been used to visualize
`
`fingerprint residue for photography. Visibility of finger marks is largely
`
`dependent on the position of the light source, surface, and viewer. Marks
`
`will be either visible or invisible depending on these relative positions. Even
`
`though these diagrams depict an “imaging system” (i.e. camera) as viewing
`
`the “latent prints”, the visibility of the fingerprint residue to the naked eye
`
`occurs in the same or very similar manner. While Figures 1-3 generally
`
`describe viewing fingerprint residue for forensic purposes, they also
`
`represent the general visibility of fingerprint residue where the human eye
`
`is the imaging system and ambient light is the light source. It is my opinion
`
`that lighting conditions are one factor that influences the visibility of
`
`fingerprint residue. The following sections touch upon the influence of the
`
`surface and the residue components on visibility. It is the interaction of all
`
`three of these conditions that ultimately determines whether fingerprint
`
`residue is visible to the naked eye at any given time.
`
`36.
`
`Fig. 1: Fingerprint residue may be more visible under conditions of
`
`transmitted lighting (Attachment H ¶ 2.6.5). As light passes through a
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`transparent surface, fingerprint residue scatters some of that light into the
`
`eye resulting in a visible fingerprint. The Figure here is provided as a visual
`
`example of what had been previously described or understood in the
`
`fingerprint field (Attachment J, Ex. 1044, under ¶ 2.6).
`
`
`
`37.
`
`Fig. 2: Fingerprint residue may be more visible under conditions of specular
`
`illumination (Attachment H ¶ 2.6.5). Light shining down on a smooth surface
`
`at a sharp angle reflects just past the eye, while some of the ligh
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
