UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`DR. SQUATCH LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`The Procter & Gamble Company
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 11,540,999
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF BOZENA B. MICHNIAK-KOHN, PHD
`
`1
`
`PETITIONER DR. SQUATCH
`EX. 1002
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`ENGAGEMENT AND COMPENSATION ................................................... 6
`
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 6
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .......................................................................... 8
`
`IV. MATERIALS REVIEWED ............................................................................ 9
`
`V. UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELEVANT LAW ....................................13
`
`A. Obviousness .........................................................................................14
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ..........................................17
`
`VII. RELEVANT TIMEFRAME FOR DETERMINING OBVIOUSNESS ......18
`
`VIII. TECHNICAL INTRODUCTION .................................................................19
`
`A.
`
`Background of the Technology ...........................................................19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Deodorants vs. Antiperspirants .................................................19
`
`Basics of Deodorants ................................................................20
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Types of Deodorants .......................................................20
`
`Components of Anhydrous Stick Compositions ............21
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Carrier Oils ...........................................................21
`
`Structurants ...........................................................22
`
`iii.
`
`Fragrances ............................................................24
`
`iv. Antimicrobials ......................................................25
`
`c.
`
`Hardness of Anhydrous Stick Compositions ..................25
`
`3.
`
`The Move to Natural Deodorants .............................................28
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Aluminum-Free...............................................................28
`
`Silicone-free ....................................................................29
`
`Natural Antimicrobials ...................................................30
`
`Natural Fragrances ..........................................................31
`
`B.
`
`The ’999 Patent Disclosure ................................................................31
`
`IX. GROUND 1: Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-18 are Obvious over Lesniak in
`view of Phinney and Bianchi ’518 ................................................................34
`
`2
`
`PETITIONER DR. SQUATCH
`EX. 1002
`
`

`

`A. Overview of the Combination .............................................................34
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Rationale (Motivation) Supporting Obviousness ...............................36
`
`Reasonable Expectation of Success ....................................................38
`
`D. Analogous Art .....................................................................................40
`
`E.
`
`Claim Mapping ....................................................................................40
`
`CLAIM 1 .............................................................................................40
`
`CLAIM 2 .............................................................................................45
`
`CLAIM 3 .............................................................................................45
`
`CLAIM 4 .............................................................................................46
`
`CLAIM 5 .............................................................................................47
`
`CLAIM 6 .............................................................................................47
`
`CLAIM 7 .............................................................................................47
`
`CLAIM 9 .............................................................................................48
`
`CLAIM 10 ...........................................................................................49
`
`CLAIM 11 ...........................................................................................49
`
`CLAIM 12 ...........................................................................................50
`
`CLAIM 13 ...........................................................................................51
`
`CLAIM 15 ...........................................................................................51
`
`CLAIM 16 ...........................................................................................51
`
`CLAIM 17 ...........................................................................................52
`
`CLAIM 18 ...........................................................................................52
`
`X. GROUND 2: Claim 8 is Obvious Over Lesniak in view of Phinney, Bianchi
`’518, and Lamb ..............................................................................................52
`
`A. Overview of the Combination .............................................................52
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Rationale (Motivation) Supporting Obviousness ...............................53
`
`Reasonable Expectation of Success ....................................................54
`
`D. Analogous Art .....................................................................................54
`
`E.
`
`Claim Mapping ....................................................................................55
`
`CLAIM 8 .............................................................................................55
`
`3
`
`PETITIONER DR. SQUATCH
`EX. 1002
`
`

`

`XI. GROUND 3: Claim 14 is Obvious Over Lesniak in View of Phinney,
`Bianchi ’518, and Bianchi ’254 .....................................................................56
`
`A. Overview of the Combination .............................................................56
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Rationale (Motivation) Supporting Obviousness ...............................56
`
`Reasonable Expectation of Success ....................................................57
`
`D. Analogous Art .....................................................................................58
`
`E.
`
`Claim Mapping ....................................................................................58
`
`CLAIM 14 ...........................................................................................58
`
`XII. GROUND 4: Claims 1-15, 17-18 are Obvious Over Native in View of
`Bianchi ’254 and Easy Homemade ...............................................................59
`
`A. Overview of the Combination .............................................................59
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Rationale (Motivation) Supporting Obviousness ...............................62
`
`Reasonable Expectation of Success ....................................................64
`
`D. Analogous Art .....................................................................................65
`
`E.
`
`Claim Mapping ....................................................................................66
`
`CLAIM 1 .............................................................................................66
`
`CLAIM 2 .............................................................................................71
`
`CLAIM 3 .............................................................................................71
`
`CLAIM 4 .............................................................................................71
`
`CLAIM 5 .............................................................................................72
`
`CLAIM 6 .............................................................................................73
`
`CLAIM 7 .............................................................................................73
`
`CLAIM 9 .............................................................................................77
`
`CLAIM 10 ...........................................................................................79
`
`CLAIM 11 ...........................................................................................80
`
`CLAIM 12 ...........................................................................................82
`
`CLAIM 13 ...........................................................................................82
`
`CLAIM 14 ...........................................................................................82
`
`CLAIM 15 ...........................................................................................83
`
`4
`
`PETITIONER DR. SQUATCH
`EX. 1002
`
`

`

`CLAIM 17 ...........................................................................................84
`
`CLAIM 18 ...........................................................................................84
`
`XIII. GROUND 5: Claim 16 is Obvious Over Native in View of Bianchi ’254,
`Easy Homemade, and Millet .........................................................................85
`
`A. Overview of the Combination .............................................................85
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Rationale (Motivation) Supporting Obviousness ...............................85
`
`Reasonable Expectation of Success ....................................................86
`
`D. Analogous Art .....................................................................................87
`
`E.
`
`Claim Mapping ....................................................................................87
`
`CLAIM 16 ...........................................................................................87
`
`XIV. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ...........................................................88
`
`XV. OATH ............................................................................................................88
`
`
`
`5
`
`PETITIONER DR. SQUATCH
`EX. 1002
`
`

`

`I.
`
`ENGAGEMENT AND COMPENSATION
`
`1. My name is Bozena B. Michniak-Kohn. I have been retained by counsel
`
`for Dr. Squatch for the purpose of providing my opinion with respect to the
`
`unpatentability of U.S. Patent No. 11,540,999 (“the ’999 Patent”). I am being
`
`compensated for my time in preparing this declaration at my standard hourly rate,
`
`and my compensation is not dependent upon my opinions or the outcome of the
`
`proceedings.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`2. My qualifications and credentials are fully set forth in my curriculum
`
`vitae, attached as Ex. 1048. I am an expert in the field of formulating compositions
`
`for topical application, including pharmaceutical and cosmetic compositions. Over
`
`the past 40 years, I have accumulated significant experience designing and testing
`
`novel formulations for topical and transdermal delivery systems, creams, gels,
`
`emulsions, and micro- and nano-carrier systems. Past work has also included
`
`formulation and investigations of mechanisms of action of antiperspirants and
`
`deodorants.
`
`3.
`
`I received a B.S. in Pharmacy from DeMontfort University, Leicester,
`
`England, in 1977. I received my Ph.D. in Pharmacology from DeMontfort
`
`University in 1980. I held Postdoctoral Fellowships at the University of Florida’s
`
`College of Pharmacy from 1981-1983, and at the University of Bradford’s
`
`6
`
`PETITIONER DR. SQUATCH
`EX. 1002
`
`

`

`Postgraduate School of Studies in Pharmacy from 1983-1986. I am a member of the
`
`Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (license #73637.)
`
`4.
`
`I was an Assistant Professor in the Department of Basic Pharmaceutical
`
`Sciences-Pharmaceutics (tenure-track) at the University of South Carolina’s College
`
`of Pharmacy from 1987-1993, an Associate Professor from 1993-1998, and Full
`
`Professor with tenure from 1998-2000. From 2000-2005, I was an Associate
`
`Professor in the Department of Physiology and Pharmacology at the University of
`
`Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey- NJ Medical School. I then moved to Rutgers-
`
`The State University of New Jersey (Busch Campus), where I am now a tenured
`
`Professor in Pharmaceutics.
`
`5.
`
`Since 2000, I have acted as the Director of the Laboratory for Drug
`
`Delivery and in 2011, I founded the Center for Dermal Research (CDR) at Rutgers
`
`and continue to act as its Director. I am currently a member of the Editorial Boards
`
`of several peer-reviewed journals including Pharmaceutics (MDPI), the Clinical
`
`Dermatology Research Journal (SciTechnol), Research and Reports in Transdermal
`
`Drug Discovery (Dove Medical Press, Ltd.), Journal of Drug Research and
`
`Development (Sciforshen), and the Journal of Drug Discovery (Hindawi Publishing
`
`Company).
`
`6.
`
`I have been elected Fellow at the American Association of
`
`Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS) and the Royal Society of Chemistry. I have also
`
`7
`
`PETITIONER DR. SQUATCH
`EX. 1002
`
`

`

`been awarded the title of Doctor of Science (D.Sc.) by the Poznan University of
`
`Medical Sciences (PUMS) in Poznan, Poland for outstanding contributions to the
`
`field of pharmaceutical sciences in July 2023. I have also organized numerous
`
`industry events and conferences.
`
`7.
`
`I have published hundreds of peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, and
`
`abstracts related to the field of field of formulating compositions for topical
`
`application, including publications on antiperspirants and deodorants. I have also
`
`been invited to speak about this field at numerous academic and industry
`
`conferences.
`
`8.
`
`Since starting my academic career, I have undertaken numerous funded
`
`projects within the cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries. This includes work on
`
`antiperspirant and deodorant mechanisms of action, as well as, among other things,
`
`the creation of novel sweat gland models for antiperspirant formulation testing.
`
`9.
`
`In view of my experiences and expertise outlined above and provided
`
`in my CV, I am an expert in the field of formulating compositions for topical
`
`application. For this reason, I am qualified to provide an opinion as to what a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have understood, known, or concluded
`
`as of June 30, 2017 and/or March 23, 2018.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`10.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would have found:
`
`8
`
`PETITIONER DR. SQUATCH
`EX. 1002
`
`

`

`(1) U.S. Patent No. 11,433,018 (“Lesniak”) renders obvious claims 1-7, 9-13,
`
`and 15-18 in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,314,412 (“Phinney”) and U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,048,518 (“Bianchi ’518”);
`
`(2) Lesniak renders obvious claim 8 in view of Phinney, Bianchi ’518, and
`
`John H. Lamb, Sodium Bicarbonate: An Excellent Deodorant, 7(3) J.
`
`INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY 131-33 (1946) (“Lamb”);
`
`(3) Lesniak renders obvious claim 14 in view of Phinney, Bianchi ’518, and
`
`U.S. Pub. Patent App. Pub. No. 2007/166254 (“Bianchi ’254”);
`
`(4) the Native deodorant website (“Native”) renders obvious claims 1-15, and
`
`17-19 in view of Bianchi ’254 and the Easy Homemade deodorant website
`
`(“Easy Homemade”); and
`
`(5) Native renders obvious claim 16 in view of Bianchi ’254, Easy
`
`Homemade, and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0168954 (“Millet”).
`
`IV.
`
` MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`11.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have relied on my knowledge of the field,
`
`and have specifically reviewed the following exhibits:
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,540,999 (“the ’999 Patent”)
`
`9
`
`PETITIONER DR. SQUATCH
`EX. 1002
`
`

`

`1003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,433,018 (“Lesniak”)
`
`1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,314,412 (“Phinney”)
`
`1005
`
`John H. Lamb, Sodium Bicarbonate: An Excellent Deodorant, 7(3)
`J. INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY 131-33 (1946) (“Lamb”)
`
`1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,048,518 (“Bianchi ’518”)
`
`1007
`
`Native Wayback Machine archives, captured May 26, 2016,
`November 23, 2016, November 1, 2015 respectively for:
`https:/www.nativecos.com
`https://www.nativecos.com/product/deodorant/
`https:/www.nativecos.com
`(“Native”)
`
`1008
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2007/0166254 (“Bianchi ’254”)
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`Wayback Machine archive, captured January 26, 2017, for
`http:/soapdelinews.com/2016/11/easy-homemade-deodorant-
`recipe.html (“Easy Homemade”)
`Angelica Peebles, P&G Has Acquired Native Natural Deodorant
`Brand, CNBC (Nov. 15, 2017, 5:34 P.M.),
`https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/15/pg-has-acquired-native-natural-
`deodorant-brand.html (last visited May 28, 2024)
`Rachel Lapidos, P&G Has Acquired Cult-Fave Deodorant Brand
`Native, WELL+GOOD (Nov. 17, 2017),
`https://www.wellandgood.com/pg-acquired-natural-deodorant-
`brand-native/ (last visited May 29, 2024)
`Alex Bitter, P&G Buys Deodorant Brand Native for Undisclosed
`Sum, S&P GLOBAL (Nov. 15, 2017, 5:31 PM)
`https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-
`insights/trending/DWXgoreaSsTDRfJ0RDSMEg2 (last visited May
`29, 2024)
`
`1013
`
`KARL LADEN ET AL., ANTIPERSPIRANTS AND DEODORANTS (Karl
`Laden ed., 2nd ed. 1999)
`
`10
`
`PETITIONER DR. SQUATCH
`EX. 1002
`
`

`

`1014
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0142085
`
`1015
`
`English Translation of Int’l Patent App. Pub. No. WO 2012/098189
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`SoapDeliNews Wayback Machine archive, captured April 17, 2013,
`for https:/soapdelinews.com/2013/03/natural-handmade-lavender-
`patchouli-deodorant-recipe-with-printable-labels.html
`SoapDeliNews Wayback Machine archive, captured July 23, 2016,
`for http:/soapdelinews.com/2016/07/natural-neem-oil-deodorant-
`recipe.html
`SoapDeliNews Wayback Machine archive, captured October 19,
`2012, for http:/soapdelinews.com/2012/10/diy-natural-homemade-
`deodorant-recipe.html
`
`LORRAINE WHITE, HOMEMADE DEODORANT 32 EASY TO MAKE ALL
`NATURAL & ORGANIC DEODORANT & BODY SPRAY RECIPES (2014)
`
`Homemade Deodorant, THE CRUNCHY URBANITE (Nov. 24, 2013)
`https://thecrunchyurbanite.com/2013/11/24/homemade-deodorant/
`(last visited May 29, 2024)
`Piyatip Khuntayaporn & Jiraphong Suksiriworapong, Efficacy of
`Essential Oil Formulations Against Malodor Causing Bacteria,
`44(4) PHARM. SCIS. ASIA 209-16 (2017)
`
`Laura G. Corral, et al., A Research Note Antimicrobial Activity of
`Sodium Bicarbonate, 53(3) J. FOOD SCI. 981-82 (1988)
`
`Pamela Emanoil, Customers Itching for Personal Care
`Alternatives, Apr. 2006 NAT. FOODS MERCHANDISER 40-42 (2006)
`
`Mohammed A. Shahtalebi et al., Deodorant Effects of a Sage
`Extract Stick: Antibacterial Activity and Sensory Evaluation of
`Axillary Deodorancy, 18(10) J. RSCH. MED. SCI. 833-39 (2013)
`
`1025
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,585,092
`
`1026
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,610,237
`
`11
`
`PETITIONER DR. SQUATCH
`EX. 1002
`
`

`

`1027
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0199252
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`James Lambert, Silicone Safety and the Cosmetic Industry, 126(11)
`Cosms. & Toiletries 810-15 (2011)
`
`Julia Pasquet et al., The Contribution of Zinc Ions to the
`Antimicrobial Activity of Zinc Oxide, 457 COLLOIDS & SURFACES:
`PHYSICOCHEMICAL & ENG’G ASPECTS 263-74 (2014)
`Rodrigo Carvalho, Hydroxyisohexyl 3-Cyclohexene
`Carboxaldehyde (Lyral®) as Allergen: Experience from a Contact
`Dermatitis Unit, 30(3) CUTANEOUS & OCULAR TOXICOLOGY 249-50
`(2011)
`Maria V. Heisterberg, et al., Deodorants are the Leading Cause of
`Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Fragrance Ingredients, 64 CONTACT
`DERMATITIS 258-64 (2011)
`J. Handley & D. Burrows, Allergic Contact Dermatitis from the
`Synthetic Fragrances Lyral and Acetyl Cedrene in Separate
`Underarm Deodorant Preparations, 31 CONTACT DERMATITIS 288-
`90 (1994)
`
`Prosecution History Excerpts of U.S. Patent Application No.
`17/194,437 (’999 file history)
`
`Prosecution History Excerpts of U.S. Patent Application No.
`17/961,089
`
`Prosecution History Excerpts of U.S. Provisional Patent
`Application No. 62/527,180
`
`1036
`
`Schueller, R., & Romanowski, P., Multifunctional cosmetics (2003)
`
`1037
`
`Siquet, F., & Devleeschouwer, M. J., Antibacterial agents and
`preservatives, Handbook of Cosmetic Science and Technology
`(2009)
`
`1038
`
`Fed. Reg. Vol. 60, No. 176 (Sept. 12, 1995)
`
`1039
`
`Compendium of Food Additive Specifications, FNP 52 Add 13
`(2005)
`
`12
`
`PETITIONER DR. SQUATCH
`EX. 1002
`
`

`

`1040
`
`Complaint For Patent Infringement (ECF No.1) from The Procter &
`Gamble Co. v. Dr. Squatch, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04711 (C.D.
`Cal.)
`
`1041
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,049,792
`
`1042
`
`JOHN A. DEAN, LANGE’S HANDBOOK OF CHEMISTRY (John A. Dean
`ed., 15th ed. 1999)
`
`1043
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,919,934
`
`1044
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0168954 (“Millet”)
`
`1045
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,497,706
`
`1046
`
`21 C.F.R. § 720.4(d) (1992)
`
`1047
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,123,932
`
`1048
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Bozena B. Michniak-Kohn, Ph.D.
`
`1049
`
`Int’l Patent App. Pub. No. WO 2012/098189
`
`SAMUEL P. SADTLER ET AL., A TEXT-BOOK OF CHEMISTRY
`INTENDED FOR THE USE OF PHARMACEUTICAL AND MEDICAL
`STUDENTS (5th ed. 1918)
`
`1050
`
`
`
`V. UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELEVANT LAW
`
`12.
`
`I have the following understanding of the applicable law.
`
`13
`
`PETITIONER DR. SQUATCH
`EX. 1002
`
`

`

`A. Obviousness
`
`13.
`
`I understand that a claim in an issued patent can be unpatentable if it is
`
`obvious. Obviousness does not require that every element of the claim be in a single
`
`prior art reference. Instead, it is possible for claim elements to be described (or
`
`suggested) in different prior art references, so long as there is motivation or sufficient
`
`reasoning to combine the references, and a reasonable expectation of success in
`
`achieving what is set forth in the claims.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable for obviousness if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the alleged invention
`
`was made to a POSA to which said subject matter pertains.
`
`15.
`
`I understand, therefore, that when evaluating obviousness, one must
`
`consider obviousness of the claim “as a whole.” This consideration must be from the
`
`perspective of the person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, and that such
`
`perspective must be considered as of the time the alleged invention was made.
`
`16. The level of ordinary skill in the art is discussed in ¶¶ 26-28 below.
`
`17. The relevant time frame for obviousness, the time the alleged invention
`
`was made, is discussed in ¶¶ 29-31, below.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that in considering the obviousness of a claim, one must
`
`consider four things. These include the scope and content of the prior art, the level
`
`14
`
`PETITIONER DR. SQUATCH
`EX. 1002
`
`

`

`of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time, the differences between the prior art
`
`and the claim, and any “secondary considerations.”
`
`19.
`
`I understand that “secondary considerations” include real-world
`
`evidence that can tend to make a conclusion of obviousness either more probable or
`
`less probable. For example, the commercial success of a product embodying a claim
`
`of the patent could provide evidence tending to show that the claimed invention is
`
`not obvious. In order to understand the strength of the evidence, one would want to
`
`know whether the commercial success is traceable to a certain aspect of the claim
`
`not disclosed in a single prior art reference (i.e., whether there is a causal “nexus” to
`
`the claim language). One would also want to know how the market reacted to
`
`disclosure of the invention, and whether commercial success might be traceable to
`
`things other than innovation, for example, the market power of the seller, an
`
`advertising campaign, or the existence of a complex system having many features
`
`beyond the claims that might be desirable to a consumer. One would also want to
`
`know how the product compared to similar products not embodying the claim. I
`
`understand that commercial success evidence should be reasonably commensurate
`
`with the scope of the claim, but that it is not necessary for a commercial product to
`
`embody the full scope of the claim.
`
`20. Other kinds of secondary considerations are possible. For example,
`
`evidence that the relevant field had a long-established, unsolved problem or need
`
`15
`
`PETITIONER DR. SQUATCH
`EX. 1002
`
`

`

`that was later provided by the claimed invention could be indicative of non-
`
`obviousness. Evidence that others had tried, but failed to make an aspect of the claim
`
`might indicate that the art lacked the requisite skill to do so. Evidence of copying of
`
`the patent owner’s products before the patent was published might also indicate that
`
`its approach to solving a particular problem was not obvious. Evidence that the art
`
`recognized the value of products embodying a claim, for example, by praising the
`
`named inventors’ work, might tend to show that the claim was non-obvious.
`
`21.
`
`I further understand that prior art references can be combined where
`
`there is an express or implied rationale to do so. Such a rationale might include
`
`an expected advantage to be obtained, or might be implied under the circumstances.
`
`For example, a claim is likely obvious if design needs or market pressures existing
`
`in the prior art make it natural for one or more known components to be combined,
`
`where each component continues to function in the expected manner when combined
`
`(i.e., when there are no unpredictable results).
`
`22.
`
`I understand that when evaluating a motivation to combine, it is not
`
`necessary to show that a combination is the best option, only that it be a suitable
`
`option, and that a given course of action with simultaneous advantages and
`
`disadvantages does not necessarily obviate any motivation to combine.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that when considering obviousness, one can refer to
`
`portions of
`
`the specification admitted
`
`to being prior art,
`
`including
`
`the
`
`16
`
`PETITIONER DR. SQUATCH
`EX. 1002
`
`

`

`“BACKGROUND” section. Furthermore, a lack of discussion in the patent
`
`specification concerning how to implement a disclosed technique can support an
`
`inference that the ability to implement the technique was within the ordinary skill in
`
`the prior art.
`
`24.
`
`In addition, I understand that a reference need not state a feature’s
`
`absence in order to disclose a negative limitation.
`
`25. Finally, I understand that when a claimed range overlaps with the range
`
`in the prior art, this may render the claim obvious, notwithstanding differences in
`
`the ranges, unless there was something unexpected or critical about the claimed
`
`range. I understand that such unexpected results must differ in kind and not merely
`
`in degree from the results in the prior art to render the claim patentable where the
`
`ranges overlap.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, the relevant art was that of formulating cosmetics.
`
`27.
`
`In my opinion, the level of ordinary skill encompassed a person with at
`
`least a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, pharmacy/pharmaceutical sciences, chemical
`
`engineering, materials science or a comparable field, with 2-3 years’ experience in
`
`formulating cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, or other comparable products, or similarly
`
`relevant industry experience, with relevant experience substituting for education and
`
`vice versa.
`
`17
`
`PETITIONER DR. SQUATCH
`EX. 1002
`
`

`

`28. Given my experience in the field, I am familiar with the knowledge that
`
`a POSA would have had at the time and the manner in which such a person would
`
`have viewed the available information at the time. My testimony is offered from this
`
`perspective, even if it does not specifically refer to the perspective of a POSA in
`
`every instance.
`
`VII. RELEVANT TIMEFRAME FOR DETERMINING OBVIOUSNESS
`
`29.
`
`I understand that obviousness must be evaluated at the time right before
`
`the invention. From the cover pages of the ’999 Patent, I can see that it claims
`
`priority to June, 30, 2017, the filing date of Provisional Application No. 62/527,180,
`
`and March 23, 2018, the filing date of Provisional Application No. 62/647,104. I
`
`have reviewed Provisional Application No. 62/527,180 and found no disclosure a
`
`deodorant stick composition (i) comprising 25% liquid triglyceride or (ii) having a
`
`hardness of from about 80 mm*10 to about 140 mm*10 as measured with an ASTM
`
`D-1321 needle (required in all claims). I understand that the application’s failure to
`
`describe those features means that the ’999 Patent cannot claim priority to a date
`
`earlier than March 23, 2018, which I will use as the date of the invention for purposes
`
`of my analysis.
`
`30. Nevertheless, my analysis applies equally if I assume, as I did in the
`
`alternative, that June 30, 2017 is the date of the invention. As set forth below, the art
`
`discussed herein came before both dates.
`
`18
`
`PETITIONER DR. SQUATCH
`EX. 1002
`
`

`

`31.
`
`In
`
`particular, Lesniak was
`
`filed
`
`on
`
`June
`
`18,
`
`2015
`
`(PCT/US2015/036498); Phinney issued on April 19, 2016; Bianchi ’518 issued on
`
`April 11, 2000; Lamb published in 1946; Bianchi ’254 published on July 19, 2007;
`
`Native published by November 23, 2016; Easy Homemade published by January 26,
`
`2017, and Millet was filed on May 10, 2016.
`
`VIII. TECHNICAL INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background of the Technology
`
`1.
`
`Deodorants vs. Antiperspirants
`
`32. Deodorants form a category of cosmetic products that were developed
`
`to mask and/or counteract the buildup of unwanted human body odor. Ex. 1013, 169-
`
`83, 189-95. Deodorants typically contain antimicrobials and/or fragrances to inhibit
`
`the formation and perception of malodor. Id., 201. As discussed further below,
`
`fragrances were known to mask or overpower malodor with a more pleasant aroma,
`
`while antimicrobials were known to limit the growth of bacteria responsible for
`
`production of malodorous compounds. Id., 171-83, 194-201, 250-51.
`
`33. Antiperspirants are generally considered a subcategory of deodorants.
`
`Like deodorants, they were known to contain fragrances and/or antimicrobials, but
`
`they also included additional active ingredients that may reversibly occlude sweat
`
`pores in the skin. Ex. 1006, 3:5-11; Ex. 1014, ¶¶ [0020]-[0026] (“[A]ntiperspirant
`
`actives include astringent metallic salts, particularly inorganic and organic salts of
`
`19
`
`PETITIONER DR. SQUATCH
`EX. 1002
`
`

`

`aluminum, zirconium, and zinc, as well as mixtures thereof.”); Ex. 1003, 3:39-4:21,
`
`8:46-48, 10:27 (describing zinc-based antiperspirant compositions); Ex. 1015, 5; Ex.
`
`1049, 3-4; Ex. 1008, ¶ [0064] (“[A]ntiperspirant stick compositions of this invention
`
`further comprise one or more additional optional components selected from the
`
`group consisting of . . . fragrances [and] preservatives.”); Ex. 1013, 73, 215. The
`
`occlusion of sweat pores was known to reduce moisture and nutrients from glandular
`
`secretion, and ultimately curb the bacterial growth and metabolism responsible for
`
`malodorous compounds. Ex. 1013, 73.
`
`2.
`
`Basics of Deodorants
`
`a.
`
`Types of Deodorants
`
`34. The first commercial deodorant product specifically for underarm use
`
`launched in 1888. Ex. 1013, 1-2, 170. Over the years, the deodorant category
`
`expanded into a wide range of new packaging forms and formulation types. Id., 1-2.
`
`Examples of different deodorant products include, e.g., aerosols, pump sprays,
`
`creams, roll-ons, and sticks. Id. Deodorant sticks are a popular form introduced in
`
`the 1950s. Id., 9. Early deodorant sticks were glycol gels (containing water)
`
`dispensed in an oval swivel-up container that allowed for easy application. Id.
`
`Anhydrous sticks, packaged in containers resembling those used for the original
`
`glycol gel sticks, were subsequently developed. Id., 13; see generally Ex. 1014.
`
`20
`
`PETITIONER DR. SQUATCH
`EX. 1002
`
`

`

`35. By the time of the purported invention, it was understood that
`
`anhydrous stick compositions were versatile and could be utilized in the
`
`development of either antiperspirants or deodorants products. Ex. 1014, ¶ [0008].
`
`b.
`
`Components of Anhydrous Stick Compositions
`
`36. While anhydrous stick compositions were known to contain a wide
`
`range of ingredients, they typically contained a few well-established components.
`
`The most common components are described below.
`
`i.
`
`Carrier Oils
`
`37. Liquid carriers were known components of stick deodorant and
`
`antiperspirant compositions prior to the purported invention. These materials could
`
`(1) function as emollients (skin conditioning agents that help maintain hydration);
`
`(2) help reduce undesirable visible residue (whitening) upon application of the
`
`composition to the skin; and/or (3) solubilize or disperse active ingredients such as
`
`the astringent metallic salts in antiperspirants. Ex. 1014, ¶¶ [0002], [0037], [0050];
`
`Ex. 1008, ¶¶ [0046], [0050]; Ex. 1006, 4: