`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`RIMFROST AS
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AKER BIOMARINE ANTARCTIC AS
`Patent Owner
`
`
`CASE IPR: IPR2020-01534
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,010,567
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..............................................3
`
`COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOES NOT APPLY ........................................................4
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. GROUND 1 SHOULD BE DENIED ................................................................................5
`
`V.
`
`GROUNDS 2, 3 AND 4 SHOULD BE DENIED ...........................................................18
`
`VI. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................................19
`
`VII. CONCLUSION AND PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ...........................................19
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,010,567
`
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`All of the asserted Grounds rely on Bottino II for the “less than 3% w/w free
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`fatty acids” limitation, including Ground 1 which is the Ground asserted against
`
`both independent claims (claims 1 and 15). The combined references in the
`
`Grounds fail to provide this claim element. As a result, Petitioner has failed to
`
`present any Grounds which establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
`
`
`
`Petitioner continues to allege that the “unknown” fraction of the Station 11
`
`krill extract of Bottino II (Ex. 1038) contained free fatty acids. Petitioner’s Reply
`
`(“Reply”; Paper 14). There is no dispute that Bottino II discloses that the
`
`“unknown” fraction included unidentified lipids that migrate between diglycerides
`
`and triglycerides in the thin layer chomatography (TLC) method utilized by
`
`Bottino II. However, in continuing to make this argument, Petitioner ignores the
`
`the irrefutable evidence that in the TLC method used by Bottino II, based on the
`
`method of Freeman and West (Ex. 2002), free fatty acids do not have an Rf
`
`between that of diglycerides and triglcyerides. Based on the only relevant
`
`evidence, the “unknown” fraction does not include free fatty acids.
`
`
`
`In an attempt to direct attention away from this irrefutable evidence,
`
`Petitioner points to a number of other cherry-picked references that disclose TLC
`
`methods where free fatty acids do have an Rf between that of diglycerides and
`
`triglycerides. However, this approach is not scientifically valid as none of those
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`references use solvent systems that are the same as or similar to Bottino II or
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,010,567
`
`
`Freeman and West. Further, Petitioner and its expert have provided no supporting
`
`literature references or experimental evidence that shows that the slight changes
`
`between the Bottino II method and the Freeman and West method (i.e., deletion of
`
`0.2 parts acetic acid in solvent system 1 and use of a different silica gel) would
`
`have any impact on how free fatty acids migrate in relation to diglycerides and
`
`triglycerides as specifically disclosed in Freeman and West. Dr. Tallon’s
`
`speculative expert testimony on this issue is unsupported by any evidence or record
`
`and should be ignored.
`
`II. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOES NOT APPLY
`
`Petitioner briefly addresses collateral estoppel at p. 4 of its Reply, alleging
`
`that the references in the Grounds had previously been considered by the Board. In
`
`making this argument, Petitioner for some reason focuses on the cholesterol
`
`limitation appearing in two of the dependent claims. This is an attempt to side-step
`
`the issue raised by Patent Owner in its Response (Paper 9; “PO Response”) that
`
`both independent claims of the ‘567 patent include the limitation of “less than 3%
`
`w/w free fatty acids” which had not been previously addressed in any decision by
`
`the Board. PO Response at 10-12. As explained in the PO Response, this is a
`
`completely new claim element that has not been previously adjudicated and which
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`materially alters the question of invalidity. Id. at 11. Petitioner’s attempt to
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,010,567
`
`
`redirect the Board’s attention to a different claim limitation in the dependent
`
`claims regarding cholesterol both ignores Patent Owner’s arguments which
`
`specifically apply the relevant standards for collateral estoppel and evidences a
`
`misunderstanding of the law of collateral estoppel. Indeed, Petitioner has made no
`
`attempt to address PO’s arguments in its Response regarding the applicable
`
`elements for establishing whether collateral estoppel exists.
`
`III. GROUND 1 SHOULD BE DENIED
`
`The Ground 1 combination of Sampalis II, Bottino II and Randolph
`
`does not teach or suggest the claim limitation of “less than 3% w/w free fatty
`
`acids” as required by both independent claims. As a result, Petitioner has failed to
`
`meet its burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
`
`
`
`It cannot be disputed that Bottino II teaches that the data for the Station II
`
`krill lipid extract reported in Table 2 was obtained by TLC using the method of
`
`Freeman and West with three slight modifications: 1) the silica gel Adsorbosil-5
`
`was used instead of silica gel-G; 2) 0.2 parts of acetic acid was eliminated from
`
`solvent mixture 1; and 3) gravimetry was used for quantitation of the spots
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`instead of colorimetry.1 Further, it cannot be disputed that Bottino II discloses
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,010,567
`
`
`that the “unknown” fraction of the Station 11 krill lipid extract contained lipids
`
`that had Rf values between diglycerides and triglycerides (i.e., the “unknown”
`
`lipids migrated between diglycerides and triglycerides). Finally, it cannot be
`
`disputed that Freeman and West discloses that when its two solvent system is
`
`used for TLC, free fatty acids do not have an Rf between that of diglycerides and
`
`triglycerides as demonstrated in panel C of Figure 1 of Freeman and West,
`
`reproduced below. When deposed, Dr. Tallon was forced to admit this fact. Ex.
`
`2020 (Tallon Depo.) p. 0042, l. 5 – 0043, l. 10). As previously argued by Patent
`
`Owner, these facts establish that a POSITA would conclude that the 2 ± 22%
`
`“unknown” fraction in the Station 11 extract in Table 2 of Bottino II could not
`
`and did not contain free fatty acids. PO Response at 12-16; Ex. 2001 (Jaczynski
`
`Decl.) at ¶¶26-28.2
`
`
`1 Only the first two changes are related to the how actual TLC process was
`
`performed. The third change to the use of gravimetry applies only to quantitation
`
`of the resolved lipids after the TLC process was performed.
`
`2 The Board should ignore Petitioner’s assertions regarding Fricke 1984 (Ex. 1010)
`
`as it was not included in an instituted Ground and there are no arguments of record,
`
`for example on motivation to combine with the other references or reasonable
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,010,567
`
`
`
`
`
`expectation of success. As held by the Supreme Court, the petitioner is the “master
`
`of its complaint,” SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018). As such,
`
`“[i]t is of the utmost importance that petitioners . . . adhere to the requirement that
`
`the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the
`
`grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina
`
`Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. §
`
`312(a)(3)).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,010,567
`
`
`In spite of this evidence, Petitioner has doubled-down on its assertion that
`
`the “unknown” fraction of Station 11 extract in Table 2 of Bottino II has to
`
`contain free fatty acids. Petitioner’s arguments are not supported by any credible
`
`evidence, nor can they meet the required burden of proof.
`
`Petitioner’s expert admits that “[t]he Rf values observed in one analysis
`
`cannot be directly compared to Rf values used with different solvent systems,
`
`different adsorbent, different equipment, and different operating conditions. That
`
`is why reference standards are used to calibrate the analysis.” Ex. 1086 (Tallon
`
`Decl.) ¶21. However, Dr. Tallon and Petitioner then inexplicably go on to do
`
`exactly that by arguing that:
`
`a POSITA would have understood, when analyzed by TLC, free fatty acids
`will typically have an Rf value between the Rf values of triglycerides and
`diglycerides as described in the footnote to Table 2 of Bottino II. Tallon
`Reply, ¶¶ 9, 24-28, 31-37.
`Reply at 8; see also 12-13. As support for this argument, Petitioner cites specific
`
`paragraphs from Dr. Tallon’s Declaration that discuss a number of other TLC
`
`experiments, none of which use the same solvent system as Bottino II or
`
`Freeman and West much less the same absorbent, equipment or operating
`
`conditions. These references include Ex. 1177 (Zamora and Hidalgo), Ex. 1176
`
`(Blank et al.), Ex. 1162 (Yamaguchi), Ex. 1172 (Tsuyuki), and Ex. 1174
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Showman et al.). As shown in the following Table, most of these references
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,010,567
`
`
`used a single solvent mixture as opposed to a dual solvent system and none of the
`
`references used a solvent mixture containing ethanol.
`
`Reference TLC Solvents
`
`Thin layer Two-
`step?
`
`Ethanol?
`
`Solvent mixture 1:
`Diethyl ether-
`benzene-ethanol-
`acetic acid
`40:50:2:0.2
`
`Solvent mixture 2:
`Diethyl ether-
`hexane 6:94
`Freeman and West
`(1966), Acetic
`acid removed from
`solvent mixture 1
`
`Solvent mixture 1:
`Diethyl ether-
`benzene-ethanol
`40:50:2
`
`Solvent mixture 2:
`Diethyl ether-
`hexane 6:94
`
`Comparison of
`several different
`solvent systems
`
`
`Freeman
`and West
`Ex. 2002
`
`Bottino II
`Ex. 1038
`
`Zamora
`and
`Hidalgo
`Ex. 1177
`
`
`
`Silica gel-
`G
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Adsorbosil-
`5
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Not
`described
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Do FFA
`have Rf
`between
`TG and
`DG?
`No
`
`Not
`disclosed;
`does not
`provide a
`picture of
`the TLC
`plate
`
`Depends
`on solvent
`system
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yamaguchi
`Ex. 1162
`
`Tsuyuki
`Ex. 1172
`
`Showman
`Ex. 1174
`
`
`
`1. petroleum ether-
`diethyl ether-
`acetic acid
`2. hexane-diethyl
`ether-formic acid
`3. toluene-diethyl
`ether – ethyl
`acetate-acetic acid
`4. isopropyl ether-
`acetic acid; then
`petroleum ether-
`diethyl ether-
`acetic acid
`5. petroleum ether-
`diethyl ether-
`acetic acid
`6. heptane-
`isopropyl ether-
`acetic acid
`7. Toluene; then
`hexane-
`chloroform-
`methanol
`Petroleum ether-
`diethylether-acetic
`acid
`Petroleum ether-
`diethyl ether-
`acetic acid
`(85:15:1)
`Hexane-diethyl
`ether-acetic acid
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,010,567
`
`
`1. No
`
`2. No
`
`3. No
`
`4. Yes
`
`5. No
`
`6. No
`
`7. Yes
`
`1. No
`
`2. No
`
`3. No
`
`4. No
`
`5. No
`
`6. No
`
`7.Methanol
`
`1. Yes
`
`2. Yes
`
`3. No
`
`4. Yes
`
`5. Yes
`
`6. Yes
`
`7. No
`
`Silica gel
`60F
`
`No
`
`No
`
`Silica gel G No
`
`No
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Silica gel
`60
`
`No
`
`No
`
`Yes
`
`None of the references relied on by Petitioner and its expert utilize a
`
`solvent system that is similar to that utilized by Freeman and West, or as modified
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`by Bottino II. Thus, according to Petitioner’s own reasoning, it is not
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,010,567
`
`
`scientifically credible to utilize these references to try to establish that the slight
`
`changes made to the method of Freeman and West by Bottino II would result in
`
`the free fatty acids suddenly having an Rf between diglycerides and triglycerides
`
`as is required for Petitioner’s prima facie case of obviousness.3 The simple fact is
`
`that the closest TLC system to that used by Bottino II is Freeman and West and
`
`in that system the free fatty acids did not have an Rf value between that of
`
`diglycerides and triglycerides. Petitioner’s argument that “Dr. Tallon confirmed
`
`that the “unknown” fraction includes any free fatty acids in the krill sample
`
`analyzed and, as a result, the Station 11 krill extract included no more than 2%
`
`free fatty acids” is not supported by credible evidence. See Reply at 8.
`
`In fact, Dr. Tallon’s own analysis of Table 11 of Zamora and Hidalgo
`
`establishes that in two of the seven TLC procedures the Rf of free fatty acids is
`
`not between diglycerides and triglycerides. Dr. Tallon provided the following
`
`highlighted table in ¶27 of his Declaration (Ex. 1086):
`
`
`3 Dr. Tallon also admitted that there is no indications of what, if any, standards
`
`Bottino II utilized. Ex. 2020 (Tallon Depo.) p. 0051, l. 5 –16).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,010,567
`
`
`The Rf of free fatty acids did not fall between those of diglycerides and
`
`triglycerides in the TLC methods summarized in columns 3 and 7.4 This evidence
`
`directly undermines Petitioner’s argument that “free fatty acids will typically have
`
`an Rf value between the Rf values of triglycerides and diglycerides. . . .” See
`
`
`
`Reply at 8.
`
`
`
`Petitioner further argues that:
`
`
`4 It is noted that the only other solvent system the utilizes an alcohol (the first
`
`solvent mixture used by Bottino II and Freeman and West used ethanol) is the two
`
`solvent system in Column 7 of Table 11 of Zamora and Hidalgo. Ex. 1177 at 0020.
`
`This solvent system used toluene as the first solvent and then a mixture of hexane,
`
`chloroform and methanol. In this system, the Rf of free fatty acids is not between
`
`that of diglycerides and triglycerides.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,010,567
`
`
`
`
`
`[I]t is undisputed that the TLC methodologies, as well as the samples
`analyzed in Bottino II and Freeman & West were different making any
`comparison of the resulting Rf values inapt. Tallon Reply, ¶¶19-29. In
`particular, Bottino II expressly states that its TLC method differed from the
`method used in Freeman and West in at least three (3) ways, including
`differences in the solvent system and adsorbent used. Exhibit 1038, p.
`0002.
`Reply at 11. Of course, this argument is completely contradictory to Petitioner’s
`
`argument that the results of even less similar TLC methods can be used to show
`
`that free fatty acids have an Rf value between that of diglycerides and
`
`triglycerides.
`
`In any event, it is undisputed that Bottino II modified the method of
`
`Freeman and West by deleting 0.2 parts of acetic acid from the first solvent
`
`mixture and by using Adsorbosil-5 instead of silica gel-G. Petitioner argues that:
`
`“Because the solvent system and absorbent significantly influence Rf values and
`
`the distance individual components travel on a TLC plate, Patent Owner’s
`
`comparison of the results reported in Table 2 of Bottino II and Freeman & West’s
`
`chromatograph is unavailing.” Reply at 12. However, Petitioner has presented no
`
`evidence, other than Dr. Tallon’s unsupported testimony, that these minor
`
`changes to Freeman and West would suddenly cause free fatty acids to have an Rf
`
`between that of diglycerides and triglycerides.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,010,567
`
`
`Specifically, Petitioner and its expert have not presented any evidence,
`
`experimental or from the scientific literature, that examines the effect of removing
`
`0.2 parts of acetic acid from any solvent mixture or on any differences between
`
`the use of Adsorbosil-5 and silica gel-G. Indeed, Dr. Tallon admitted when
`
`deposed that he could not quantify what differences in Rf values could be
`
`expected by these changes. Ex. 2020 (Tallon Depo.) p. 0035, l. 22 – 0036, l. 14
`
`and p. 0038, l. 10-20). Thus, Petitioner has failed to provide evidence to support
`
`its assertion that the changes made by Bottino II would cause free fatty acids to
`
`have an Rf value between that of diglycerides and triglycerides, let alone that a
`
`POSITA would believe so.
`
`Petitioner next argues that the sum of the weight percentages of the Station
`
`II extract equals 100% and asks the question: “If the “unknown” fraction does not
`
`include free fatty acids, in which lipid class of the Station 11 extract are the free
`
`fatty acids found?” Reply at 14. First, it is not Patent Owner’s burden of proof to
`
`show what percentage of free acids the Station II extract contained or identify
`
`where the free fatty acids are – they are definitely not in the unknown fraction as
`
`discussed above. Second, the most likely explanation is that the free fatty acid
`
`content was simply not reported in Table 2, for example due to poor resolution.
`
`See Ex. 2001 (Jaczynski Decl.) ¶29.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,010,567
`
`
`Furthermore, when deposed, Dr. Tallon admitted that the TLC methods of
`
`references such as Tsuyuki and Yamaguchi identified components of krill lipids
`
`including cholesterol, cholesterol esters, pigments and monoglycerides. Ex. 2020
`
`(Tallon Depo.) 0023, l. 13 – 0025, l. 7). In fact, Tsuyuki quantified these
`
`components by TLC and found that krill lipids contained 2.2% monoglycerides,
`
`4.7% sterols, 0.8% sterol esters, and 4.1% pigments. See Ex. 1172 at 0005 (Table
`
`1) and Ex. 2020 (Tallon Depo.) 0064, l. 23 – 0065, l. 19. Bottino II fails to report
`
`any of these lipid classes, which do not migrate between diglycerides and
`
`triglycerides in the method of Tsuyuki. Of course, it is not known where these
`
`lipids would have migrated in the method of Bottino II, but the fact that they were
`
`not reported indicates that Bottino II simply did not report the values for some
`
`lipid classes. Indeed, when deposed Dr. Tallon admitted that Bottino II “hasn’t
`
`gone to the trouble to quantify” free cholesterol levels. Ex. 2020 (Tallon Depo.) at
`
`0053, l. 20-24. Tsuyuki reported free cholesterol levels (sterols in Table 2 of
`
`Tsuyuki) to be present at 4.7%. Id. at 0065, l. 7-10. There is no evidence that
`
`Bottino II also simply did not go to the trouble to quantify free fatty acids.
`
`Petitioner next attempts to address the fact that the value reported for the
`
`“unknown” fraction contains a very large standard deviation of ± 22. Petitioner
`
`argues that a POSITA would understand this to be a “percentage variation” of
`
`22% of 2% or ± 0.44 wt%. The only support for this argument is Dr. Tallon’s
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`hindsight-based calculations. First, those calculations are at best highly
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,010,567
`
`
`speculative as the underlying data in Table 2 of Bottino II is not reported and
`
`without that data or a more detailed description in Bottino II there can be no way
`
`to recalculate to the standard deviation.5 Petitioner and Dr. Tallon have offered
`
`no evidence from any other publication using an approach similar to that utilized
`
`by Dr. Tallon. Second, Petitioner’s arguments that a standard deviations cannot
`
`encompass negative values is incorrect. This can happen in non-normally
`
`distributed data.
`
`Finally, Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner’s inherency argument is
`
`unpersuasive, arguing that it is “directly refuted by Dr. Tallon’s testimony that
`
`any free fatty acids in the Station 11 krill extract reported in Bottino II are found
`
`
`5 Based on Dr. Tallon’s calculations, Petitioner asserts that a POSITA would have
`
`understood that Station 11’s “unknown” fraction was 1.56 to 2.44%. Reply at 16.
`
`However, since the results in Table 2 were presented as whole numbers with no
`
`decimals and only one or two significant figures it is not appropriate to use those
`
`numbers to calculate values with three significant figures. Indeed, spurious digits,
`
`introduced by calculations resulting in a number with a greater precision than the
`
`precision of the used data in the calculations, or in a measurement reported to a
`
`greater precision than the measurement resolution, are not significant figures.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`in the “unknown” fraction. Thus, the Station 11 Euphausia superba krill extract
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,010,567
`
`
`contains at most 1.56 - 2.44% free fatty acids, and therefore necessarily less than
`
`3% as recited in the challenged claims. Tallon Reply, ¶¶ 9, 16, 48-52; Tallon
`
`Decl., ¶¶ 174, 459.” Reply at 18. Dr. Tallon’s speculative, unsupported
`
`testimony alone cannot establish that the “unknown” fraction contained free fatty
`
`acids. Indeed, when deposed Dr. Tallon admitted that there is no direct reference
`
`to free fatty acids in Table 2 of Bottino or anywhere else. Ex. 2020 (Tallon Depo.)
`
`p. 0074, l. 6-23 ). Therefore, the TLC method used by Bottino II does not provide
`
`“direct measurement of the free fatty acids found in the Station II extract” as
`
`argued by Petitioner. See Reply at 9. At best, Petitioner and Dr. Tallon are
`
`arguing that the “unknown” fraction, which by its own description is unknown,
`
`would have necessarily contained free fatty acids. This is the very definition of
`
`an inherency argument. And here it fails because Petitioner has failed in its
`
`burden to prove that the “unknown” fraction necessarily contained free fatty
`
`acids. As discussed in detail above, it much more probable based on the data in
`
`Freeman and West that the free fatty acids do not have an Rf between diglycerides
`
`and triglycerides in the solvent systems used by Bottino II. Petitioner has
`
`presented no credible evidence that the minor changes made by Bottino II to the
`
`method of Freeman and West would suddenly cause the Rf values of the free fatty
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`acids, diglycerides and triglycerides to substantially change. Thus, Petitioner is
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,010,567
`
`
`relying on an inherency argument and has failed to carry its burden.
`
`
`
`In summary, the combined references in Ground 1 fail to teach element of
`
`independent claims 1 and 15. Petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie case
`
`of obviousness with respect to the independent claims and the claims dependent
`
`thereon. Ground 1 must be denied.
`
`V. GROUNDS 2, 3 AND 4 SHOULD BE DENIED
`
` Under Ground 2, Petitioner that claims 6, 14, and 20 are obvious over the
`
`combination of Sampalis I, Bottino II, Randolph, and Breivik II. Under Ground 3,
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 12 and 18 are obvious over the combination of
`
`Sampalis I, Bottino II, Randolph, and Bottino I. Under Ground 4, Petitioner
`
`asserts that claims 13 and 19 are obvious over the combination of Sampalis I,
`
`Bottino II, Randolph, Yamaguchi, Hardardottir, and Fricke. In each of these
`
`Grounds, Petitioner relies on Bottino II to provide the claim element of “less than
`
`3% w/w free fatty acids” in the underlying independent claims. Grounds 2, 3, and
`
`4 thus fail because Bottino II does not provide the claim element of “less than 3%
`
`w/w free fatty acids” as discussed above.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,010,567
`
`
`
`
`VI. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d), the undersigned certifies that this Petition
`
`complies with the type-volume limitation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a). The word count
`
`application of the word processing program used to prepare this Petition indicates
`
`that the Petition contains 3,349 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a) (that is, the word count does not include the table of contents,
`
`the exhibit list, certificate of compliance, conclusion, or the certificate of service).
`
`VII. CONCLUSION AND PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to show
`
`that the claims of the ’567 Patent are unpatentable over the combined art in the
`
`Grounds upon which trial was instituted. Accordingly, Patent Owner requests
`
`that the Board confirm the patentability of Claims 1-20 of the ’567 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: December 16, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASIMIR JONES SC
`
`By /John Mitchell Jones/
`
`
`
` John Mitchell Jones, Reg. No, 44,174
`Email: jmjones@casimirjones.com
`
`
`
`David Casimir, Reg. No. 42,395
`Email: dacasimir@casimirjones.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Aker Biomarine Antarctic AS
`
`19
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,010,567
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 16th day of December 2021, a
`
`copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply to Petitioner’s Reply, Patent
`
`Owner’s Updated Exhibit List and Exhibit 2020 were served in their entirety
`
`electronically (as consented to by Petitioner) to the attorneys of record as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`567ipr@hbiplaw.com
`
`James F. Harrington
`jfhdocket@hbiplaw.com
`Hoffmann & Baron, LLP
`6900 Jericho Turnpike
`Syosset, NY 11791
`
`Michael I. Chakansky
`micdocket@hbiplaw.com
`Hoffmann & Baron, LLP
`
`John T. Gallagher
`jtgdocket@hbiplaw.com
`Hoffmann & Baron, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /John Mitchell Jones/
`John Mitchell Jones, Ph.D.
`Registration No. 44,174
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`CASIMIR JONES, S.C.
`2275 Deming Way, Suite 310
`Middleton, Wisconsin 53562
`(608) 662-1277
`
`
`20
`
`