`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01914
`U.S. Patent No. 8,394,618 B2
`Patent Owner submits this Sur-Reply pursuant to the Order of November 17.
`
`I. The Newly Relied-Upon Wang Reference Does Not Suggest the Use of
`Lipase for Facilitating Evaporative Fingerprint Removal.
`
`
`
`In an attempt to remedy the deficiencies in the prior art relied upon in the
`
`Petition, Petitioner submits the Wang reference and suggests that it somehow
`
`shows that “stain removal by catalytic action and evaporation were well-known.”
`
`Reply 9-10 (capitalization omitted). In fact, Wang was already considered by the
`
`Office during prosecution. As the applicants successfully argued then, while Wang
`
`discloses that enzymes such as lipase can degrade the components of a bioorganic
`
`stain, it lacks any teaching that such degradation can facilitate the removal a
`
`fingerprint stain by vaporization. Ex. 1012 at 10. Petitioner’s expert Dr. Rozzell
`
`admitted as much in his deposition, including on examination by Petitioner’s own
`
`counsel. Ex. 2017 at 54:12-18 (“Q: . . . [I]n totality, considering the disclosures of
`
`Wang, do these disclosures provide for the removal of a bioorganic stain by
`
`evaporation? A: . . . I don’t believe so. I believe the focus is on breaking down the
`
`components but not explicitly disclosing evaporation.”); see also id. at 11:8-12:13.
`
`
`
`Thus, the prior art, including Wang, gave no expectation that degrading the
`
`components of a bioorganic stain into smaller molecules would facilitate the
`
`removal of the stain by vaporization. As argued by the applicants in prosecution,
`
`Wang in particular provided “no expectation that the activity of a lipase associated
`
`coating or substrate will actually promote removal of [a] fingerprint as opposed to
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01914
`U.S. Patent No. 8,394,618 B2
`merely degrading one or more component parts and leaving those component parts
`
`on the surface of the material,” which “may explain why [Wang] requires washing
`
`with [deionized] water to actually remove the [decomposed] stain.” Ex. 1012 at
`
`10-11 (emphasis added); see Ex. 1025 ¶ [0051] (removing an egg-white stain
`
`degraded with protease by “wash[ing] with DI water”). In his deposition, Dr.
`
`Rozzell admitted that there would be no expectation that breaking down the
`
`components of a fingerprint stain into smaller molecules with lipase would
`
`necessarily make the stain less visible. Ex. 2017 at 59:22-60:12; cf. Inst. Dec. 5-6
`
`(construing the phrase “facilitating the removal of a fingerprint by vaporization” in
`
`claim 1 to require a reduction in “visually apparent” bioorganic material). Wang
`
`does not suggest, never mind teach, the methods of the ’618 patent.
`
`II. Petitioner’s Belated Evidence Does Not Establish That Buchanan Was
`“Publicly Accessible.”
`
`
`
` The Institution Decision noted that Petitioner’s case hinges on the testimony
`
`of Dr. Rozzell. Inst. Dec. 7-8, 16-17, 23-24. The only support he offers for his
`
`assertions regarding the alleged obviousness of using lipase in a method of
`
`facilitating the removal of fingerprints by vaporization is the Buchanan paper. See
`
`Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 32-34, 40-41. Because the reply evidence belatedly submitted by
`
`Petitioner does not show that Buchanan was in fact “publicly accessible” before
`
`the ’618 patent’s priority date, Dr. Rozzell’s testimony (already described in the
`
`Institution Decision as “border[ing] on conclusory”) should be given no weight.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01914
`U.S. Patent No. 8,394,618 B2
` A reference is “publicly accessible” if it has been “[1] disseminated or [2]
`
`
`
`otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled
`
`in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Suffolk
`
`Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Petitioner has not
`
`shown that Buchanan was ever “disseminated” to persons in the relevant field—
`
`i.e., bioactive materials scientists. While the Pepper declaration (cited at page 25
`
`of the Reply) asserts that Buchanan appeared in the “Proceedings”1 of a conference
`
`sponsored by the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers and entitled
`
`“Forensic Evidence Analysis and Crime Scene Investigation,” see Ex. 1023 at 1,
`
`the target audience for this conference would have been forensic scientists (as its
`
`name plainly suggests). Petitioner’s own expert Eric Ray (a trained forensic
`
`scientist) admits that such persons do not qualify as POSITAs in the field of the
`
`’618 patent. Ex. 2018 at 9:8-10:6 (Mr. Ray testifying that he “would not consider
`
`[himself] to be a POSITA . . . because of [his] lack of experience in lipase-coated
`
`surfaces”). Because the target audience of the conference did not include persons
`
`in the relevant field, the fact that the Buchanan paper might have been presented
`
`there does not establish its “public accessibility.” See Coalition for Affordable
`
`Drugs VIII, LLC v. The Trustees of The Univ. of Pa., IPR2015-01835, Paper 56 at
`
`
`
`1 A conference proceeding is a collection of research papers presented at a
`
`conference. See, e.g., http://libguides.gatech.edu/confproc.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01914
`U.S. Patent No. 8,394,618 B2
`19 (Mar. 6, 2017) (a slide set presented at an investor day was not sufficiently
`
`disseminated because there was no evidence that “the target audience would have
`
`been an ordinary artisan in the relevant field”).
`
`
`
` Not only is there no evidence that Buchanan was ever “disseminated” to the
`
`relevant POSITAs, but there is also no evidence that it was “otherwise made
`
`available” to an extent that a reasonably diligent POSITA could locate it. For
`
`example, the record lacks any evidence that a copy of the conference proceedings
`
`in which Buchanan allegedly appeared was received and catalogued by any library
`
`or online database prior to the relevant date. Cf. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., v.
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2014-00553, Paper 57 at 7-9 (Nov. 30, 2015)
`
`(finding that a conference proceedings paper was “publicly accessible” where the
`
`petitioner provided a declaration from a university librarian with knowledge of the
`
`library’s “normal practices for recording the receipt of and cataloging and shelving
`
`of conference proceedings” as well as the catalog record for the paper). The fact
`
`that Buchanan was apparently referenced in a handful of other forensics papers, see
`
`Reply 25; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 47-53, does not prove that it was sufficiently available to the
`
`relevant research community; at most, this suggests that the paper might have been
`
`circulated among forensic scientists and crime scene investigators.
`
`III. The Ray Declaration Does Not Bolster Petitioner’s Case.
`
` With its Reply, Petitioner has introduced a declaration from a brand new
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01914
`U.S. Patent No. 8,394,618 B2
`expert, Mr. Ray. Much of Mr. Ray’s declaration attempts to fill the gaps in
`
`Petitioner’s initial case, particularly in Dr. Rozzell’s testimony. In particular, Mr.
`
`Ray suggests that the prior art would have revealed to the POSITA both that the
`
`lipid components of fingerprint residue tend to vaporize from the surface and that
`
`lipase enzymes can facilitate this process. See Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 20, 26-27. However,
`
`his assertions in that respect are just as unsubstantiated as Dr. Rozzell’s.
`
`
`
` To begin with, Mr. Ray, by his own admission, is not a POSITA. See supra
`
`at 3; Ex. 2018 at 36:9-12 (“I am really an expert in fingerprints and aspects of
`
`developing, comparing, researching fingerprints and fingerprint residue, but not in
`
`the art of bioactive surfaces.”). Accordingly, to the extent that he purports to opine
`
`that a POSITA would have been motivated to use lipase in a method of facilitating
`
`the removal of fingerprints, that opinion plainly lacks any competent foundation.
`
`
`
` Further, the prior art cited by Mr. Ray lends no credibility to his assertions.
`
`Thus, his declaration claims that the Ramotowski reference disclosed the tendency
`
`of fingerprint lipids to evaporate from the surface after being degraded into smaller
`
`compounds, see Ex. 1020 ¶ 20, but Ramotowski in fact makes no reference to the
`
`evaporation of lipids or their breakdown products, as Mr. Ray was forced to admit
`
`on cross-examination. Ex. 2018 at 18:9-19:7. While he asserted in his deposition
`
`that it would be the “inherent property” of compounds formed by the lipase-
`
`catalyzed breakdown of lipids to evaporate from the surface, id. at 19:13-17, there
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01914
`U.S. Patent No. 8,394,618 B2
`is simply no teaching to that effect in Ramotowski. As such, Ramotowski fails to
`
`establish a pre-existing expectation that the action of lipase would promote the
`
`removal of a fingerprint stain as opposed to merely degrading some components of
`
`the stain and leaving those components on the surface. See supra at 1-2.
`
`
`
` Similarly, the Mong reference cited by Mr. Ray, see Ex. 1020 ¶ 20, indicates
`
`only that water evaporates from fingerprint residue over time. Ex. 2013 at 12
`
`(stating that “up to 85% of the fingerprint’s weight (presumably as water)” is lost
`
`over two weeks). This is beside the point. First, to the extent that the water
`
`portion of a fingerprint evaporates over time, the activity of a lipase would not be
`
`expected to facilitate that process. See Ex. 2018 at 34:21-35:12. Second, the loss
`
`of water does not result in the removal of the fingerprint. To the contrary, Mong
`
`explains that it results in “[t]he consolidation of the materials in the fingerprint to a
`
`waxy layer,” Ex. 2013 at 12, which, by Mr. Ray’s own admission, would actually
`
`be expected to make the remaining compounds less likely to evaporate. Ex. 2018
`
`at 27:23-28:10 (“[T]hat mixture of lower molecular weight compounds, and
`
`particularly saturated compounds, forms a harder, more crystal[l]ine shell [which]
`
`further lowers the chance of vaporization of those resulting compounds.”). Thus,
`
`Mong does not disclose that fingerprint stains can be removed from a surface by
`
`vaporization, much less that lipase would be useful in facilitating such removal. In
`
`sum, Mr. Ray’s declaration offers no support for Petitioner’s arguments.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Dated: November 27, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01914
`U.S. Patent No. 8,394,618 B2
` /s/ Joshua A. Lorentz
`
`
`
`Joshua A. Lorentz
`Reg. No. 52,406
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Toyota Motor Corporation
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01914
`U.S. Patent No. 8,394,618 B2
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER’S SUR-REPLY was served on November 27, 2017 by email on the
`
`following counsel of record for Petitioner:
`
`David O. Simmons (dsimmons@ivcpatentagency.com)
`
`Jonathan D. Hurt (jhurt@technologylitigators.com)
`
`Mark A.J. Fassold (mfassold@wattsguerra.com)
`
`Jorge Mares (jmares@wattsguerra.com)
`
`Rico Reyes (rico@ricoreyeslaw.com)
`
`
`
`Dated: November 27, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Joshua A. Lorentz
`Joshua A. Lorentz
`Reg. No. 52,406
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Toyota Motor Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`