`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`
`
`In association with inter partes review of claims 1-11 (“Challenged Claims”)
`
`of United States Patent No. 8,394,618 (“’618 Patent”), Petitioner Reactive Surfaces
`
`Ltd. LLP submits the following response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`on Cross-examination (“Motion”) of Dr. David Rozzell and Mr. Eric Ray, such
`
`cross-examinations both conducted on November 15, 2017.
`
`
`
`Observation I.A.1
`
`Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Rozzell’s testimony as it relates to this
`
`observation is relevant to the parties’ disagreement regarding the proper definition of
`
`the ’618 Patent’s “field of endeavor” and is relevant because it allegedly highlights
`
`the hindsight nature of Dr. Rozzell’s definition. (Motion at 1)
`
`The cited testimony is not relevant in the manner asserted by Patent Owner
`
`because Dr. Rozzell has testified in regard to the field of endeavor in the context of
`
`the field of the claimed invention and in regard to the prior art. (See Ex. 2017 at
`
`10:12-14.) For example, in the context of this observation, when asked “[a]re you
`
`aware of any prior art patents or publications that talked about using enzymes
`
`containing polymeric coatings to facilitate the removal of fingerprints and other
`
`bioorganic stains by vaporization” in the context of the basis of his definition of the
`
`field of endeavor, Dr. Rozzell answered “Yes” and, when asked “Can you name --
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`can you name -- name them” Dr. Rozzell answered “The first one that comes to mind
`
`is actually one of the exhibits, I believe it's Wang” (See Ex. 2017 at 10:15-23). Dr.
`
`Rozzell goes on to testify as to specific prior art disclosure in Wang supporting the
`
`basis of such definition of the field of endeavor. (Ex. 2017 at 47:25-49:24; 57:8-
`
`58:9.) For example, in regard to Wang, Dr. Rozzell has testified that:
`
`1. “Well, Wang teaches that the enzymes could be a protease if it's a protein
`
`stain or a lipase if it's an oil or lipid or fat-based stain. We tend to break
`
`those molecules down, hydrolyze them, and create sort of self-cleansing
`
`type mechanism to assist in the removal of that stain.” when asked “[w]hat
`
`effect would you say such hydrolyzation, as referenced in Wang or
`
`disclosed by Wang, have on a stain of Wang?” (Ex. 2017 at 49:6-14)
`
`2. “It would assist it. It would make it more likely to happen.” when asked
`
`what effect would such hydrolyzing have on the ability of a lipid or a
`
`bioorganic stain such as a lipid to evaporate?” (Ex. 2017 at 49:20-24)
`
`
`
`Observation I.A.2
`
`Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Rozzell’s testimony as it relates to this
`
`observation is relevant to the definition of the “field of endeavor” and is relevant
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`because it highlights the fact that Dr. Rozzell himself lacks any experience or
`
`expertise in the relevant “field of endeavor” as he has defined it. (Motion at 2)
`
`The cited testimony is not relevant in the manner asserted by Patent Owner
`
`because Dr. Rozzell’s testimony supports his experience as it relates to the
`
`underlying enzymatic functionality that can provide for facilitating the removal of
`
`fingerprints by vaporization. For example, although Dr. Rozzell has testified that
`
`“Personally, I haven't worked on specifically trying to remove fingerprints by
`
`vaporization using an enzyme-associated coating” (See Ex. 2017 at 27:5-7), he has
`
`unambiguously testified to his in-depth understanding of the underlying mechanism
`
`that enables removal of bioorganic stains from a lipase associated coating or substrate
`
`by vaporization. (See Ex. 2017 at 27:8-29:12; 38:18-39:14; 43:8-43:22; 49:9-24;
`
`52:8-54:24; 59:16-60:18.) Also supporting his opinion that Buchanan is pertinent
`
`and analogous art, Dr. Rozzell has testified that “Buchanan dealt with the whole idea
`
`of fingerprints disappearing on the basis of vaporization, and she showed that
`
`fingerprints with more volatile components disappeared more quickly.” (See Ex.
`
`2017 at 45:23-46:4.)
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Observation I.A.3
`
`Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Rozzell’s testimony as it relates to this
`
`observation is relevant to Patent Owner’s argument that Buchanan is not from the
`
`same “field of endeavor” as the ’618 Patent and is relevant because it demonstrates
`
`that Buchanan falls outside the relevant “field of endeavor” even under Dr. Rozzell’s
`
`definition. (Motion at 2)
`
`Dr. Rozzell’s testimony in this observation must be viewed in the context of
`
`him having opined in his Reply Declaration that Buchanan is “highly pertinent and
`
`analogous art.” (See Ex. 1018 at 38, Ex. 2017 at 13:17-23.) Accordingly, the cited
`
`testimony in this observation is not relevant in the manner asserted by Patent Owner
`
`because such testimony is consistent with Dr. Rozzell having opined that Buchanan
`
`is “pertinent and analogous art” as it relates to the claimed invention. Also
`
`supporting his opinion that Buchanan is pertinent and analogous art, Dr. Rozzell has
`
`testified that “Buchanan dealt with the whole idea of fingerprints disappearing on the
`
`basis of vaporization, and she showed that fingerprints with more volatile
`
`components disappeared more quickly.” and “[T]he mechanism that they spelled out
`
`in the '618 patent as to why their invention worked was that the lipase was converting
`
`more higher boiling components in fingerprints to lower boiling, and, thereby,
`
`rendering them more vaporizable. So this mechanism of fingerprint disappearing on
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the basis of vaporization was exactly the same mechanism that Buchanan described.”
`
`(see Ex. 2017 at 45:23-46:4; 46:24-47:6)
`
`
`
`
`
`Observation I.A.4
`
`Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Rozzell’s testimony as it relates to this
`
`observation is relevant to Patent Owner’s argument that Buchanan is not reasonably
`
`pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved and is
`
`relevant because it supports Patent Owner’s position that Petitioner’s reliance on
`
`Buchanan for its alleged teaching that fingerprints can vaporize reveals improper
`
`hindsight because it amounts to defining the problem in terms of its solution.
`
`(Motion at 2)
`
`The cited testimony is not relevant in the manner asserted by Patent Owner
`
`because Dr. Rozzell’s testimony is consistent with his position on the problem being
`
`addressed by the inventors of the ’618 Patent because his testimony illustrates why
`
`the disclosure of Buchanan are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
`
`which the inventor was involved. For example, in the context of this observation,
`
`Dr. Rozzell has testified that Buchanan discloses that constituent chemical
`
`components of fingerprint residue are known to evaporate, stating in regard to
`
`Buchanan that: “She -- I'm looking at the top of Page 91, where she's looking at the
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`difference in the content of lipids, I think between children and adults, the elevated
`
`temperatures, lower molecular weight, volatile carboxylic acids that are prevalent in
`
`young children, tend to evaporate from the surface.· She talks about less volatile long
`
`chain esters. Further down she talks about cholesteryl acetate, a cholesterol ester.”
`
`(See Ex. 2017 at 40:2-9.)
`
`
`
`Observation I.B.1
`
`Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Rozzell’s testimony as it relates to this
`
`observation is relevant to Patent Owner’s argument that a POSITA would not have
`
`reasonably expected that the association of a lipase with a substrate would promote
`
`the removal of fingerprints stains from the substrate via vaporization and is relevant
`
`because it undermines Dr. Rozzell’s testimony that the use of lipase to break down
`
`the lipid components of a fingerprint stain into smaller compounds would have been
`
`expected to facilitate the removal of the fingerprint stain. (Motion at 3)
`
`Consistent with 1.) a POSITA having reasonably expected that the association
`
`of a lipase with a substrate would promote the removal of fingerprints stains from the
`
`substrate via vaporization and 2.) Dr. Rozzell’s testimony that the use of lipase to
`
`break down the lipid components of a fingerprint stain into smaller compounds would
`
`have been expected to facilitate the removal of the fingerprint stain (See Ex. 2017 at
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`54:4-24), Dr. Rozzell has testified that “Some would” as it relates to whether the
`
`breakdown products obtained from lipase-catalyzed hydrolysis of lipids would
`
`necessarily vaporize at ambient conditions. (See Ex. 2017 at 29:6-9.) Also
`
`supporting Dr. Rozzell’s testimony that the use of lipase to break down the lipid
`
`components of a fingerprint stain into smaller compounds would have been expected
`
`to facilitate the removal of the fingerprint stain, Dr. Rozzell has testified that
`
`“Buchanan dealt with the whole idea of fingerprints disappearing on the basis of
`
`vaporization, and she showed that fingerprints with more volatile components
`
`disappeared more quickly.” and “[T]he mechanism that they spelled out in the '618
`
`patent as to why their invention worked was that the lipase was converting more
`
`higher boiling components in fingerprints to lower boiling, and, thereby, rendering
`
`them more vaporizable. So this mechanism of fingerprint disappearing on the basis
`
`of vaporization was exactly the same mechanism that Buchanan described.” (see Ex.
`
`2017 at 45:23-46:4; 46:24-47:6)
`
`
`
`Observation I.B.2
`
`Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Rozzell’s testimony as it relates to this
`
`observation is relevant to Dr. Dordick’s and Patent Owner’s position that the data
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`presented in Buchanan would not reasonably support an expectation that fingerprints
`
`can be removed through vaporization. (Motion at 4)
`
`The cited testimony is not relevant in the manner asserted by Patent Owner
`
`because Dr. Rozzell’s testimony is consistent with the data presented in Buchanan
`
`reasonably supporting an expectation that fingerprints can be removed through
`
`vaporization. For example, in the context of this observation, Dr. Rozzell has
`
`testified that “I do believe isopropanol efficiently extracts lipids generally” and, in
`
`regard to isopropanol being reported to extract lipid-based compounds efficiently,
`
`Dr. Rozzell has testified that “So the article that I referenced, Drozdowski, described
`
`a process in which they used 70 percent isopropanol to extract lipids, I believe they
`
`were from fish, but fish oil, but triglycerides, generally. And they reported the
`
`extraction to be quite efficient.” (See Ex. 2017 at 33:21-34:11.) When asked “Are
`
`there any lipids, as far as you know, that would not be hydrolyzed by any kind of
`
`lipase”, Dr. Rozzell has testified “No, none that I can think of.” (See Ex. 2017 at
`
`28:8-11.) In regard to Buchanan reasonably supporting an expectation that
`
`fingerprints can be removed through vaporization, Dr. Rozzell has testified that
`
`“Buchanan dealt with the whole idea of fingerprints disappearing on the basis of
`
`vaporization, and she showed that fingerprints with more volatile components
`
`disappeared more quickly.” and “[T]he mechanism that they spelled out in the '618
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patent as to why their invention worked was that the lipase was converting more
`
`higher boiling components in fingerprints to lower boiling, and, thereby, rendering
`
`them more vaporizable. So this mechanism of fingerprint disappearing on the basis
`
`of vaporization was exactly the same mechanism that Buchanan described.” (see Ex.
`
`2017 at 45:23-46:4; 46:24-47:6)
`
`
`
`Observation I.B.3
`
`Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Rozzell’s testimony as it relates to this
`
`observation is relevant to Dr. Dordick’s and Patent Owner’s position that the data
`
`presented in Buchanan would not reasonably support an expectation that fingerprints
`
`can be removed through vaporization and is relevant because it highlights the
`
`significance of the Buchanan authors’ failure to verify whether and to what extent
`
`the chemical composition of their samples corresponded to the chemical composition
`
`of actual fingerprint residue. (Motion at 4)
`
`The cited testimony is not relevant in the manner asserted by Patent Owner
`
`because Dr. Rozzell’s testimony is consistent with the data presented in Buchanan
`
`reasonably supporting an expectation that fingerprints can be removed through
`
`vaporization. Dr. Rozzell’s actual testimony in this observation is, “I would expect
`
`there might be some compounds transferred and some not transferred and some
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`incompletely transferred and everything in-between.” (Ex. 2017 at 34;19-21.)
`
`Relatedly, Dr. Rozzell also has testified that “I do believe isopropanol efficiently
`
`extracts lipids generally” and, in regard to isopropanol being reported to extract lipid-
`
`based compounds efficiently, Dr. Rozzell has testified that “So the article that I
`
`referenced, Drozdowski, described a process in which they used 70 percent
`
`isopropanol to extract lipids, I believe they were from fish, but fish oil, but
`
`triglycerides, generally. And they reported the extraction to be quite efficient.” (See
`
`Ex. 2017 at 33:21-34:11.) When asked “Are there any lipids, as far as you know,
`
`that would not be hydrolyzed by any kind of lipase”, Dr. Rozzell has testified “No,
`
`none that I can think of.” (See Ex. 2017 at 28:8-11.) In regard to Buchanan
`
`reasonably supporting an expectation that fingerprints can be removed through
`
`vaporization, Dr. Rozzell has testified that “Buchanan dealt with the whole idea of
`
`fingerprints disappearing on the basis of vaporization, and she showed that
`
`fingerprints with more volatile components disappeared more quickly.” and “[T]he
`
`mechanism that they spelled out in the '618 patent as to why their invention worked
`
`was that the lipase was converting more higher boiling components in fingerprints to
`
`lower boiling, and, thereby, rendering them more vaporizable. So this mechanism of
`
`fingerprint disappearing on the basis of vaporization was exactly the same
`
`mechanism that Buchanan described.” (see Ex. 2017 at 45:23-46:4; 46:24-47:6)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Observation I.B.4
`
`Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Rozzell’s testimony as it relates to this
`
`observation is relevant to whether Buchanan would have reasonably supported an
`
`expectation that associating a lipase with a surface would facilitate the evaporative
`
`removal of fingerprint stains deposited on said surface. (Motion at 5)
`
`The cited testimony is not relevant in the manner asserted by Patent Owner
`
`because Dr. Rozzell’s testimony is consistent with the data presented in Buchanan
`
`reasonably supporting an expectation that associating a lipase with a surface would
`
`facilitate the evaporative removal of fingerprint stains deposited on said surface. For
`
`example, in the context of this observation, when asked “[w]ould lipase be capable
`
`of hydrolyzing these alkyl esters”, Dr. Rozzell has testified, “Generally speaking,
`
`yes.· But, obviously, as we talked before -- I want to clarify that.· As we talked
`
`before, it would depend on the ester and on the lipase, because they have different
`
`overlapping specificities. But, generally speaking, alkyl ester is a substrate for a
`
`lipase.” (Ex. 2107 at 41:1-9.) Consistent with 1.) a POSITA having reasonably
`
`expected that the association of a lipase with a substrate would promote the removal
`
`of fingerprints stains from the substrate via vaporization and 2.) Dr. Rozzell’s
`
`testimony that the use of lipase to break down the lipid components of a fingerprint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`stain into smaller compounds would have been expected to facilitate the removal of
`
`the fingerprint stain (See Ex. 2017 at 54:4-24), Dr. Rozzell has testified that “Some
`
`would” as it relates to whether the breakdown products obtained from lipase-
`
`catalyzed hydrolysis of lipids would necessarily vaporize at ambient conditions. (See
`
`Ex. 2017 at 29:6-9.) In regard to Buchanan reasonably supporting an expectation
`
`that associating a lipase with a surface would facilitate the evaporative removal of
`
`fingerprint stains deposited on said surface, Dr. Rozzell has testified that “Buchanan
`
`dealt with the whole idea of fingerprints disappearing on the basis of vaporization,
`
`and she showed that fingerprints with more volatile components disappeared more
`
`quickly.” and “[T]he mechanism that they spelled out in the '618 patent as to why
`
`their invention worked was that the lipase was converting more higher boiling
`
`components in fingerprints to lower boiling, and, thereby, rendering them more
`
`vaporizable. So this mechanism of fingerprint disappearing on the basis of
`
`vaporization was exactly the same mechanism that Buchanan described.” (see Ex.
`
`2017 at 45:23-46:4; 46:24-47:6)
`
`
`
`Observation I.B.5
`
`Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Rozzell’s testimony as it relates to this
`
`observation is relevant to whether Buchanan would have reasonably supported an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`expectation that associating a lipase with a surface would facilitate the evaporative
`
`removal of fingerprint stains. (Motion at 5)
`
`The cited testimony is not relevant in the manner asserted by Patent Owner
`
`because Dr. Rozzell’s testimony is consistent with the data presented in Buchanan
`
`reasonably supporting an expectation that associating a lipase with a surface would
`
`facilitate the evaporative removal of fingerprint stains. For example, in the context
`
`of this observation, Dr. Rozzell has testified that 1.) cholesterol esters are
`
`hydrolysable by lipase and 2.) that he would expect that acidic acid to be a break-
`
`down component from such hydrolyzing that would “vaporize at ambient -- under
`
`ambient conditions, because it's relatively volatile.” (Ex. 2017 at 41:22-42:8; 43:8-
`
`43:22.) In regard to Buchanan reasonably supporting an expectation that associating
`
`a lipase with a surface would facilitate the evaporative removal of fingerprint stains,
`
`Dr. Rozzell has testified that “Buchanan dealt with the whole idea of fingerprints
`
`disappearing on the basis of vaporization, and she showed that fingerprints with more
`
`volatile components disappeared more quickly.” and “[T]he mechanism that they
`
`spelled out in the '618 patent as to why their invention worked was that the lipase
`
`was converting more higher boiling components in fingerprints to lower boiling, and,
`
`thereby, rendering them more vaporizable. So this mechanism of fingerprint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`disappearing on the basis of vaporization was exactly the same mechanism that
`
`Buchanan described.” (see Ex. 2017 at 45:23-46:4; 46:24-47:6)
`
`
`
`Observation II.1
`
`Patent Owner asserts that Mr. Ray’s testimony as it relates to this observation
`
`is relevant to whether Buchanan constitutes art analogous to the ’618 Patent and is
`
`relevant because it shows that, to the extent that Mr. Ray opines in his declaration
`
`that Buchanan constitutes such analogous art, that opinion is not based on the
`
`perspective of the relevant POSITA. (Motion at 6)
`
`The cited testimony is not relevant in the manner asserted by Patent Owner
`
`because the subject declaration testimony to which Patent Owner refers in this
`
`observation is not directed to whether or not Buchanan constitutes such analogous
`
`art. (See. Ex. 1020 ¶ 28.)
`
`Dated: November 29, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted by:
`/s/ David O. Simmons
`
`David O. Simmons, Reg. No. 43,124
`
`Email: dsimmons@ivcpatentagency.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner, Reactive
`Surfaces Ltd., LLP
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4)(i), 42.105(b) and 42.64, the undersigned
`
`hereby certifies that a copy of this PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT
`
`OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`were served on November 29, 2017 by email on the following counsel of record for
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`
`
`Joshua A. Lorenz (joshua.lorentz@dinsmore.com)
`
`Richard H. Schabowsky (richard.schabowsky@dinsmore.com)
`
`John D. Luken (john.luken@dinsmore.com)
`
`Oleg Khariton (oleg.khariton@dinsmore.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 29, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ David O. Simmons
`
`David O. Simmons, Reg. No. 43,124
`
`Email: dsimmons@ivcpatentagency.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner, Reactive
`Surfaces Ltd., LLP
`
`
`15
`
`