throbber

`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________
`
`RIMFROST AS
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AKER BIOMARINE ANTARCTIC AS
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________________
`
`Case: IPR2020-01532
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`_______________________
`
`
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF DR STEPHEN J. TALLON
`
`
`
`
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0001
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................ 2
`DECLARATION OF DR STEPHEN J. TALLON ........................................ 3
`BASIS FOR OPINION ................................................................................... 3
`‘169 PETITION GROUNDS FOR INVALIDITY ......................................... 5
`PROBLEMS WITH PO’s RELIANCE ON ITS EXHIBITS ......................... 6
`FOR REDUCTION TO PRACTICE .............................................................. 6
`PROBLEMS WITH PO’s EXPERT DR JACZYNSKI’S CONCLUSIONS
` ....................................................................................................................... 18
`Krill meal claim construction.................................................................... 18
`Budziński EX1008 discloses a stable krill meal ....................................... 25
`suitable for extraction after storage for 13 months. .................................. 25
`Fricke describes denaturation, storage and extraction of cooked krill. .... 30
`Breivik II (EX1037) describes denaturation of krill and extraction of krill
`oil. .............................................................................................................. 35
`THE CITED COMBINATION OF PRIOR ART RENDERS THE CLAIMS
`OBVIOUS, AND POSITA WOULD BE MOTIVATED TO MAKE THIS
`COMBINATION. ......................................................................................... 42
`Processing of ‘fresh krill’ on board (PO’s points 1 & 7). ......................... 44
`Oxidative and hydrolytic stability of krill meal (PO’s point 2) ................ 46
`Use of solvents on ships (PO’s points 3 & 4). .......................................... 50
`PO argues that Fricke lacks sufficient detail (point 5). ............................ 56
`Flammability of krill meal (PO’s point 6). ............................................... 58
`MISCHARACTERIZATIONS OF MY DEPOSITION TESTIMONY ...... 59
`CONCLUDING OPINION ........................................................................... 67
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0002
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`DECLARATION OF DR STEPHEN J. TALLON
`
`
`
`
`I make this declaration in support of Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s
`
`1.
`
`(“PO’s”) Response (Paper 9) to Petition in IPR2020-01532 (“POR”).
`
`BASIS FOR OPINION
`
`
`2.
`
`I have reviewed the Declaration of Dr. Snorre Tilseth, EX2001, (“Tilseth
`
`Dec.”) and accompanying exhibits, and disagree with his conclusions overall and
`
`as described in detail in the discussion below.
`
`3.
`
`I have reviewed the Declaration of Dr. Jacek Jaczynski, EX2015,
`
`(“Jaczynski Dec.”) and accompanying exhibits, and disagree with his conclusions
`
`overall and as described in detail in the discussion below.
`
`4.
`
`I have reviewed Patent Owner’s Response to Petition, Paper No. 09, and
`
`disagree with the conclusions set forth therein and as described in detail in the
`
`discussion below.
`
`5.
`
`I have reviewed the Deposition of Dr. Jacek Jaczynski, EX1170, (“Jaczynski
`
`Dep.”).
`
`6.
`
`Furthermore, after reviewing the foregoing, I hereby reaffirm my opinion
`
`from my earlier Declaration, EX1006, including that all claims of U.S. Patent
`
`
`
`3
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0003
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`9,644,169 (“the ‘169 Patent”) would have been obvious to a POSITA in view of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`
`
`the prior art cited.
`
`7.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have also relied on my own education, work
`
`experiences and knowledge, see my CV in my declaration, EX1006, the documents
`
`referenced in Appendix E to my declaration, EX1006.
`
`8.
`
`I begin by noting some of the many admissions made by at least one of PO’s
`
`experts about what a POSITA would have known. Among other things, PO’s
`
`expert concedes that Budziński describes a krill meal which is stable for 13 months
`
`(Jaczynski Dec., EX2015 at ¶¶ 57-58), concedes that Fricke describes storage and
`
`extraction of “cooked”, i.e., denatured krill1 (Jaczynski Dec., EX2015 at ¶ 39), and
`
`concedes that Breivik describes krill denaturation and extraction (Jaczynski Dec.,
`
`EX2015 at ¶¶ 37, 55) and thus PO’s expert concedes that the prior art references in
`
`combination disclose the ‘169 patent claim elements of extracting a krill oil from a
`
`denatured krill meal after storage. These are discussed in detail below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 PO has equated to “denature lipases and phospholipases” with “destroy the
`
`activity of lipases and phospholipases”. See Tallon Dec., EX1006, ¶¶ 115-
`
`122.
`
`
`
`4
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0004
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`‘169 PETITION GROUNDS FOR INVALIDITY
`
`9.
`
`The chart below summarizes my understanding of the grounds Petitioner is
`
`asserting for the invalidity of the ‘169 patent.
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`
`
`1-5, 7-15, 17-20
`
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`
`
`6, 16
`
`5
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0005
`
`
`
`Ground
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Breivik II (EX1037)
`Catchpole (EX1009)
` Budziński (EX1008)
`Fricke (EX1010)
`Randolph (EX1011)
`
`
`
`Breivik II (EX1037)
`Catchpole (EX1009)
` Budziński (EX1008)
`Fricke (EX1010)
`Randolph (EX1011)
`Sampalis I (EX1012)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`PROBLEMS WITH PO’s RELIANCE ON ITS EXHIBITS
`FOR REDUCTION TO PRACTICE
`
`I note that Atlantic Navigator, EX2002 relied on by PO is deficient in
`
`
`10.
`
`several ways: Neither meal nor krill meal is mentioned; there is no mention of E.
`
`Superba or any krill species and only size ranges are provided; and there is no
`
`mention about the processing of the krill. Furthermore, PO’s expert, Dr. Tilseth is
`
`not an author of the report.
`
`11.
`
`I note that Report K-300, EX2003 relied on by PO is deficient in several
`
`ways: No information is provided as to how the samples were prepared; the
`
`processing conditions used are not provided; and Tables 14 and 15 have conflicting
`
`values for free fatty acids (FFA). See discussions immediately below.
`
`12. The authors of EX2003 admitted that their testing methodologies did not
`
`always agree.
`
`13. PO’s expert Tilseth relies solely on Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of EX2003 (Tilseth
`
`Dec., EX2001 at ¶ 8) in order to support his only description of the production of a
`
`denatured krill meal aboard the Atlantic Navigator. However, notwithstanding
`
`PO’s expert to the contrary, neither Section 6.1 nor Section 6.2 of EX2003 disclose
`
`or describe cooking or heating krill material denaturing lipases and phospholipases
`
`and/or describe or disclose a denatured krill product or meal. Neither does EX2003
`
`provide any of the processing conditions used to prepare the meal. Again, even if
`
`
`
`6
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0006
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`EX2003 is taken as a whole, it does not disclose cooking or heating krill for
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`
`
`denaturing lipases and phospholipases and/or describe or disclose a denatured krill
`
`product or meal.
`
`14. To be clear, none of exhibits accompanying Dr. Tilseth’s declaration,
`
`namely EX2002-EX2014, disclose “cooking”, a “cooking stage”, cooking
`
`temperature or duration, or the formation of a denatured krill product.
`
`15.
`
`I have reviewed the deposition transcript of Dr Jaczynski where he, after a
`
`45 minute private discussion with PO’s attorney, states for the first time that drying
`
`of the krill is consistent with a process and process conditions that denatures
`
`lipases in krill material. He is wrong.
`
`Q. [PO’s attorney] Is that -- when you removed moisture
`from a raw material down to the level of 7.1 percent,
`would that be consistent with the process that denatures
`the lipases and phospholipases present in the material?
`MR. CHAKANSKY: Objection, scope. You can answer.
`A. So should I answer the question?
`Q. Yes. You can answer.
`A. To me it is.
`Q. And would it also be consistent with process
`conditions that destroy the activity of the lipases and
`phospholipases?
`Yes.
`Jaczynski Dep., EX1170 at 0168:9-22.
`7
`
`
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0007
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`16. Dr Jaczynski's opinion is incorrect. It is inconsistent with his own earlier
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`
`
`testimony, it is inconsistent in general with established industrial knowledge and
`
`practice, and is also in contradiction to Dr Tilseth’s declaration and evidence in the
`
`documents relied on in the alleged reduction to practice.
`
`17. Highlighting this inconsistency, when next questioned by Petitioner’s
`
`attorney, Dr Jaczynski conceded that drying could be carried out using different
`
`time and temperature conditions (ie the mere fact of drying, on its own, doesn’t
`
`determine that any specific conditions were used to achieve the drying), and that
`
`even with knowledge of the time and conditions used that it is “not really that
`
`simple” to connect the conditions used with whether or not enzyme denaturation
`
`has occurred.
`
`Q. [Petitioner’s attorney] Okay. It doesn't matter how it
`was dried; is that correct?
`A. More or less, yes.
`Q. What if it was a low temperature?
`A. Sure, that's a possibility.
`Q. And if it was at a low temperature, would it be
`denatured?
`A. Say again, low temperature?
`Q. If the krill was dried at a low temperature, would it
`still be denatured?
`A. It could have been. It could be.
`
`
`
`8
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0008
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`Q. So it depends on time and temperature, right?
`A. Correct.
`Q. You could have a longer time and a lower temperature
`and still get a dry product?
`A. With enzymes in general you still have to have a
`certain -- I'm going to say at least certain level of
`temperature. So it's not really that simple that you can,
`you know, just simplify and just say certain, say,
`integrated time versus temperature will give you
`inactivation of an enzyme.
`
`
`
`Jaczynski Dep., EX1170 at 0177:8-0178:6. In other words, in contradiction to his
`
`own initial opinion, the simple observation of reducing the moisture content does
`
`not determine how it was dried, the conditions used, or whether those conditions
`
`would even achieve denaturation even if they were used.
`
`18. Dr Jaczynski was unable to identify any references to support his opinion
`
`that the change in moisture content is an indicator of denaturation, and his opinion
`
`remains simply his unsupported opinion. See Jaczynski Dep., EX1170 at 0179:21
`
`– 0180:2. Though he testified he teaches courses which cover denaturation, he
`
`could point to no textbook to support his moisture reduction opinion. Jaczynski
`
`Dep., EX1170 at 0182:12 – 0184:2.
`
`
`
`9
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0009
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`19. Again, the mere disclosure of reducing the water content does not specify
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`
`
`either time or temperature of the process. Certainly this is true in the specific case
`
`of the declaration of Dr Tilseth. The documents provided including Ex 2003 and
`
`Ex 2013 provide no disclosure of the manner in which the drying was carried out,
`
`either before or after any processing step including drying, or for that matter any
`
`indication of any intent to carry out denaturation of enzymes or even any mention
`
`of the presence of enzymes.
`
`20. The problem with Dr Jaczynski’s opinion is if taken at its word the mere act
`
`of drying krill to 7.1% or so should suffice at denaturing the krill material.
`
`However, the fact that drying alone cannot be used, a-priori, as a sufficient step for
`
`for enzyme denaturation is apparent in the prior art. Grantham, for example (see
`
`EX1032 at 0037, Table 10), demonstrates a krill meal process that involves steps
`
`including cooking (to denature enzymes) before drying, i.e., drying itself is not
`
`relied on as an enzyme denaturation step. As noted in Dr Jaczynski’s own
`
`declaration, EX 2015 at ¶ 53, there are competing mechanisms in heat treatment
`
`and that excessive use of heat can lead to other undesired effects including
`
`oxidation. Thus it is necessary to understand the process and process conditions
`
`used, and the objective of the heating or drying step, to understand whether or not
`
`denaturation is occurring. These details are completely absent in PO’s claimed
`
`reduction to practice.
`
`
`
`10
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0010
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`21. Furthermore, PO’s own documents alleging reduction to practice (including
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`
`
`EX2003 and EX2013), are in direct contradiction to Dr Jaczynski’s opinion.
`
`Exhibit 2013, referring to the krill meal that allegedly exemplifies the invention,
`
`states that “The results show that the proportion of neutral lipids increased in the
`
`lipid extract. This is a result of increased amount of free fatty acids. This increase
`
`may have happened during storage of the krill meal or during the extraction
`
`process. The amount of free fatty acid in the krill lipid is higher when analysed by
`
`thin layer chromatography (Table 3) than by titration (Table 1). It is an effect we
`
`usually observe, but the reason is unknown”. EX2013 at 0007 (emphasis
`
`supplied). An increase in free fatty acid concentration during storage is a clear
`
`indicator that hydrolysis activity is occurring and indicates that the lipase and
`
`phospholipase enzymes have not in fact been denatured (‘destroyed’) by any of the
`
`processing steps used in the manufacture of the krill meal. In contrast, an enzyme
`
`denaturation step such as described by Grantham, Brevik II, Budzinski, Fricke, and
`
`others whether chemical or ‘cooking’ or boiling, is intended to prevent exactly this
`
`increase in free fatty acid content. See, e.g., Brevik II, EX1037 at 4:3-6 (“The
`
`optional pre-treatment involving short-time heating of the fresh krill will also give
`
`an inactivation of enzymatic decomposition of the lipids, thus ensuring a product
`
`with very low levels of free fatty acids.”).
`
`
`
`11
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0011
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`22. Further deficiencies in the documents provided in PO’s alleged reduction to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`
`
`practice include that Aker observers were not even on board the ship when the krill
`
`meal was made “The krill meal used for the extractions described below was
`
`produced on May 6, 2005, shortly after the time periods on which the observers
`
`were on the ship.” Tilseth Dec., EX2001 at ¶ 6 (emphasis supplied).
`
`23.
`
`I have read all of the exhibits supplied and referenced by Drs. Tilseth and
`
`Jaczynski and relied on by PO for the reduction to practice argument, namely the
`
`Atlantic Navigator report (EX2002), report K300 (EX2003), meeting notes
`
`(EX2006 and EX2011), and draft agreement (EX2008). None of these documents,
`
`however, refer to inactivating, denaturing or destroying lipases or phospholipases
`
`or any enzymes, nor do they describe or disclose a denatured krill product or meal.
`
`Additionally, none of these documents identify a “cooking stage,” let alone the
`
`temperature or duration of this cooking stage, or identify the formation of a
`
`denatured krill product or meal. Similarly they do not even mention anything
`
`related to the need for or intention to denature the activity of enzymes. Neither do
`
`they disclose any measurement of the enzyme activity either before or after any of
`
`the processing.
`
`24. While Petitioner, in the grounds for obviousness, relies on Breivik II, the
`
`other references relied on back up what Breivik II discloses. For example, I note
`
`that Astaxanthin is disclosed by Budziński as being present in the krill meal, even
`12
`
`
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0012
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`during storage for up to 13 months “The red-pink colour is caused by the presence
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`
`
`of carotenoid compounds (astaxanthin and its esters). The discolouration is a result
`
`of their decomposition during production and storage; … After 13 months, no
`
`pigment was observed.” EX1008 at 0027. As PO is now happy to concede,
`
`Astaxanthin can be extracted into the krill oil “in desired amounts by known
`
`methods”. See, e.g., Tilseth Dec., EX2001 at ¶ 17; Jaczynski Dec., EX2015 at ¶¶
`
`27-28; POR at 28-38. These methods were known in the prior art, prior to Breivik
`
`II, and prior to PO’s alleged date for reduction to practice. Furthermore, the only
`
`quantification of astaxanthin in a krill oil extracted from krill meal in the
`
`documents supporting PO’s alleged reduction to practice, EX2013 at 0006 Table 1,
`
`discloses a value of 117 mg/kg Astaxanthin esters. This value is lower than the
`
`required “about 200 mg/kg” in claims 9 and 19.
`
`25. PO, in attempting to demonstrate that it had reduced to practice the ‘169
`
`patent claims relies on my prior testimony to demonstrate what would have been
`
`known to a POSITA about krill and extracting the components from krill to
`
`provide a krill oil with the desired amounts of, e.g., phospholipids and astaxanthin,
`
`and known processes for denaturing krill lipases and enzymes. Copied in the
`
`paragraph below are excerpts from both of PO’s experts, used by PO to allegedly
`
`demonstrate its reduction to practice of the ‘169 patent claims, in which they admit
`
`that I was correct in that a POSITA would have known, inter alia, that the natural
`13
`
`
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0013
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`components of krill could be extracted to provide a krill oil with desired amount of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`
`
`the components and moreover that a POSITA was aware that krill material could
`
`be denatured to destroy lipases and phospholipases using heat and/or chemicals.
`
`26. The following is excerpted verbatim from PO’s Expert’s Declarations and
`
`POR. See Tilseth Dec., EX2001 at ¶ 17; Jaczynski Dec., EX2015 at ¶ 28; POR at
`
`24-35. References to where Dr. Janzynski testified at his deposition that he agreed
`
`with my opinions and other statements as to what would have been known to a
`
`POSITA appear in brackets after the opinions/statements.
`
`
`
`14
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0014
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`
`
`27. My so-called “admissions” are simply acknowledgements of what is
`
`disclosed and taught in the prior art. These “admissions,” and PO’s acceptance of
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0015
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`them, that certain ‘169 patent claim elements were known to POSITA does not
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`
`
`demonstrate that the named inventors intended to incorporate all the elements of
`
`the patent claims into their invention.
`
`28.
`
`In discussing §§ 6.1 and 6.2 of EX2003 (0022-0023), Dr. Tilseth expressly
`
`states that “[t]he krill meal was produced by a standard meal process where fresh
`
`krill is brought on board the ship, cooked, pressed and decanted, and then dried to
`
`provide the krill meal. . . . Heating of the krill material sufficient to denature
`
`lipases and phospholipases occurs at the cooking stage prior to decanting/pressing
`
`[which comes before drying].” Tilseth Dec. at ¶ 8 (emphasis supplied). Dr. Tilseth
`
`maintains that denaturation occurs at the “cooking stage” not any subsequent
`
`decanting, pressing or drying stage. As discussed above denaturing of krill
`
`enzymes is not supported anywhere in the exhibits that Dr. Tilseth relies on,
`
`however I note here that Tilseth expressly states that the drying step takes place
`
`after the krill is purportedly denatured.
`
`Report K300, EX2003, §6.3 expressly discloses that merely drying, i.e., reducing
`
`the water content of krill mince, made using “fresh pumped krill” or “krill stored
`
`on RSW tanks” and passed through a mincer with a 3 mm hole, results in a krill
`
`meal (“Meal from minced krill”) with from 4.4 to 6.2 moisture content. Report K-
`
`300, EX2003, § 6.3 Mince Test, at 0025. Thus, according to PO’s expert Dr.
`
`Tilseth, one of the named inventors of the ‘169 patent, this EX2003 mince krill
`16
`
`
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0016
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`meal product was not a denatured krill meal as there was not a heating or cooking
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`
`
`step prior to drying. No information is provided as to the conditions used in the
`
`drying process either. Nor is there any description of a cooking step being present
`
`in the standard krill meal process.
`
`29. Moreover, the words cook or cooking do not appear anywhere in Exhibits
`
`2003 and 2013. Instead, where analysis of samples is provided “from the
`
`processing line”, for example in Tables 13, 14, 15 of Exhibit 2003 the only
`
`samples described are “Round Frozen Krill”, “After Decanter”, “After Drier before
`
`Mill”, “After Mill without AO”, and “Konstruktor Koshkin”. None of the samples
`
`relate to a cooking step, instead the only process for which a sample is reported
`
`between the fresh starting (“round frozen”) krill and drying is a decanting step.
`
`Decanting is not a cooking step. PO’s expert agrees that decanting would not
`
`denature the krill; decanting is used for separation. See Jaczynski Dep., EX1170 at
`
`0051- 0052:19.
`
`30. The concept of encapsulation (“capsule for krill oil”) and (“special capsules
`
`may be designed”) was attributed to a non-inventor - Ulf Håkansson. See EX2006
`
`at 0003 and EX2011 at 0003, respectively. See also, Jaczynski Dep., EX1170 at
`
`0060:16-0061:3.
`
`31. Thus, PO has provided no support that the invention as claimed was reduced
`
`to practice before Breivik II as it failed to provide evidence of at least the
`17
`
`
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0017
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`following claim elements: a denatured krill product; about 3% to about 15% ether
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`
`
`phospholipids; and 200 mg/kg astaxanthin esters content).
`
`
`
`
`32.
`
`PROBLEMS WITH PO’s EXPERT DR JACZYNSKI’S
`CONCLUSIONS
`
`I address firstly here the following deficiencies in the opinion of Aker’s
`
`expert, Dr Jaczynski relating to the disclosures in the prior art, namely:
`
`understanding of the term krill meal in the context of the patent; distinction
`
`between the steps of processing fresh krill on-ship to denature the krill material and
`
`subsequent independent steps associated with extraction of a krill oil; aspects
`
`related to lipid degradation; and grinding of krill.
`
`Krill meal claim construction.
`
`33. PO notes that I was provided with and used an older standard for claim
`
`construction in which claim terms are interpreted according to their “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification”, rather than the Phillips claim
`
`construction standard which I have been informed requires “that claim construction
`
`begins with the ordinary and customary meanings of the terms used in the claims
`
`and that the meanings of terms used in the claims should be understood primarily
`
`in view of the intrinsic record, including the specification and file history”. I am
`
`aware of both claim construction standards and, in my opinion, my original claim
`
`
`
`18
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0018
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`construction remains the most appropriate claim construction under either
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`
`
`standard.
`
`34. PO proposes an alternative construction, that “krill meal” means “a krill
`
`powder resulting from the processing of krill” (Jaczynski Dec., EX2015 at ¶¶ 14-
`
`16), but this does not comport with the ‘169 patent specification discussions of
`
`krill meal.2 Despite their emphasis on use of the correct standard, PO’s own
`
`construction is not based on the intrinsic evidence, e.g., the specification and
`
`prosecution file history, as I am informed is required by the Phillips standard.
`
`Instead of focusing on the patent specification, PO’s analysis of the term “krill
`
`meal” relies on four pieces of extrinsic evidence: A dictionary (EX2016), its
`
`expert’s testimony (see, e.g., EX2015 at ¶¶ 14-16), a prior art reference to one krill
`
`meal described as a “free flowing” krill product (Grantham, EX1032 at 0053) and
`
`a table of contents listing of products associated with different stages of krill
`
`
`2 Again, see my earlier declaration EX1006 at ¶¶ 134-152 for a detailed
`
`discussion of what the specification discloses about the term “krill meal”.
`
`Notably, as construed by PO, PO’s “krill meal” would by definition include
`
`completely dilipidated krill meal, i.e., a krill material without any lipids and,
`
`as such, no krill oil could be extracted from PO’s “krill meal” a material
`
`requirement of all the claims.
`
`
`
`19
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0019
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`processing from another prior art reference (Budziński, EX1008 at 0005) to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`
`
`support their claim construction (POR at 9, EX2015 at ¶ 14) while ignoring
`
`intrinsic references, including references to other water reduced meals which are
`
`not free flowing from the patent specification itself for example (see, e.g., ‘169
`
`patent, EX1001 at 10:50-59 (“freshly caught krill is wet pressed to obtain oil and a
`
`meal . . . [i]n some embodiments, this material in then pressed to yield a press
`
`cake. . . [which is a] denatured meal”, emphasis supplied). A press cake is
`
`formed by pressing or squeezing out water; a press cake is not a powder or a free
`
`flowing material. Also “wet pressing” a material simply removes water and does
`
`not result in the formation of a powder or free flowing material. Likewise a screw
`
`press is used to remove water but does not result in the formation of a powder.
`
`35.
`
` PO’s strained assertion (Jaczynsky Dec., EX2015 at ¶ 16) that the mere
`
`separate listing of, e.g., minced products and krill meal in the table of contents
`
`from Budziński, EX1008 at 0005, does not mean that a POSITA would not
`
`consider minced krill as a form of krill meal just with a higher moisture content to
`
`begin with. It is just a distinction of water content in krill mince which can be
`
`further dried to get a krill meal, a fact that even PO’s expert agrees with. See,
`
`Jaczynski Dep., EX1170 at 0032:5-14; see also, EX2013, § 6.3 at 0025. It is
`
`important to note that calling a krill product a krill meal does not require the krill
`
`meal being denatured, that is, a krill meal may or may not be a denatured krill
`20
`
`
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0020
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`product. Neither Petitioner’s construction of “krill meal”, nor PO’s construction of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`
`
`“krill meal”, require that the krill meal be denatured.
`
`36. PO draws, as its primary argument, on a dictionary definition of the word
`
`“meal”, which uses a definition that applies to products made from seeds. POR at
`
`8-11, relying on Jaczynski Dec., EX2015 at ¶ 14-16, relying on EX2016
`
`(dictionary). This bears no resemblance to a meal which would be formed from
`
`marine materials which, unlike seeds, have a high water content and are
`
`biologically unstable. The processes and equipment used to make marine meals
`
`(cooking, decanting, pressing, drying etc) bear little resemblance to seed meal
`
`processes, and the ‘169 patent claims do not relate to seeds, they all require
`
`“treating krill”.
`
`37. PO’s reliance on its krill meal as a free flowing krill is belied by the
`
`“evidence” used by PO and its expert in allegedly establishing a reduction to
`
`practice to eliminate Breivik II as prior art. EX2003 relied on by PO (see POR at
`
`21, 25, 28-29, 32, 35-36) and its experts in their declarations (see Tilseth Dec., ¶¶
`
`7-8, 12, 17; and Jaczynski Dec., ¶¶ 28-29) describes the physical characteristics of
`
`krill meals of the same type that Dr. Tilseth argues were used in development of
`
`the krill oil products of the ‘169 patent. Tilseth Dec., EX2001 at ¶¶ 7-8. However,
`
`some of the krill meals PO relies on for its reduction to practice have flow numbers
`
`close to or greater than 5, which is described as exhibiting “very poor flow
`21
`
`
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0021
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`properties”. See EX2003, Table 8 at page 0017, copied below.3 None of the krill
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`
`
`meals PO relies on for its reduction to practice have flow numbers below 2, which
`
`is described as having “very good flow properties”. Id. Table 8 from EX2003 at
`
`0017 is copied below.
`
`
`38. PO also recites use of a pressing, crushing, or grinding step, resulting in
`
`
`
`subsequent size reduction to make a powder, as a common component in the
`
`descriptions of krill meal processing which I had cited in my declaration (see POR
`
`
`3 “The flow is measured by a standardized pouring of powder over a
`
`cylindrical block with 5 cm diameter until the cone stops growing. The
`
`height of the cone reflects the flow properties of the powder. If the height is
`
`greater than 5 cm the powder has very poor flow properties. If the height is
`
`less than 2 cm the powder has very good flow properties. The height of the
`
`powder cone is denoted Flow number.” EX2003 at 0017.
`
`
`
`22
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0022
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`at 9-11, and Jaczynski Dec., EX2015 at ¶ 15). It was well known in the art that
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`
`
`krill are fragile and that handling is likely to break apart whole krill whether
`
`applied to fresh or dried krill (see, e.g., Yoshitomi, EX1033 at ¶¶ 28-34).
`
`However, it is not necessary to limit the grinding, crushing, or otherwise
`
`processing methods used in a claim construction of krill meal in light of the patent
`
`specification. Certainly the patent specification itself does not contain any
`
`description of the benefit or criticality of applying any particular crushing or
`
`grinding methodology, and none of these methods nor any properties associated
`
`with them (such a particle size or conditions used in the crushing) are described or
`
`claimed.
`
`39. As evidenced by PO, the term “meal” can be applied very broadly if given
`
`meaning without considering the intrinsic evidence. Meals, in general, were and
`
`still are often prepared as lower value animal feed products without specific
`
`consideration for compositional details and in many cases having a significantly
`
`depleted oil content.
`
`40.
`
`In light of the patent specification however it is clear that use of the term
`
`“krill meal” in the patent claims requires a krill material that is prepared with the
`
`intention of preserving the quality of the oil components, and which contains a
`
`viable content of said oil components for subsequent extraction, hence my claim
`
`construction “processed krill with reduced water content from which krill oil can
`23
`
`
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0023
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`be extracted.” See my earlier declaration EX1006 at ¶¶ 135-142 for a detailed
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,169 B2
`
`
`
`discussion of what the specification discloses about the term “krill meal”.
`
`41. There are many different ways in which the processing of krill to obtain a
`
`“krill meal” can be carried out including, optionally, different treatments to
`
`denature enzymes and prevent degradation, different ways to crush, grind or
`
`otherwise present the krill, and different ways in which to dry and stabilise the
`
`material, so it is not appropriate to distinguish these in the claim construction;
`
`however, a consistent factor in the preparation of the meal is reduction in the water
`
`content. See, e.g., my declaration EX1006 at ¶¶ 134-152.
`
`42. Reduction in water content can, but does not necessarily, include drying to a
`
`granular or powdered form, however even the driest krill meals still retain water. I
`
`don’t use of the term “dried” or “powder” to avoid this ambiguity.
`
`43. Krill materials formed by a screw press or a wet press and the resulting
`
`products including press cake are not powdered krill materials. Nor does the mere
`
`reduction in the particle size of krill materials equate to the formation of a krill
`
`
`
`powder.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0024
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01532
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Paten

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket