`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH and
`DYNAENERGETICS US, INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`
`v.
`
`
`QINETIQ LIMITED
`
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`
`Case: PGR2023-00003
`Patent No. 11,215,039
`
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00003
`U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1 
`A. 
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 1 
`B. 
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1 
`C. 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel ................................................................... 1 
`D. 
`Service Information ............................................................................... 3 
`PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 3 
`III. 
`IV.  CERTIFICATION ........................................................................................... 3 
`V. 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED ......... 8 
`VI.  BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 9 
`A. 
`Technology Background ....................................................................... 9 
`i. 
`Shaped charges and perforating .................................................. 9 
`ii. 
`The development of liner designs using experimentation
`and modeling techniques ........................................................... 11 
`The use of prior results in the selection of liners ...................... 12 
`iii. 
`The EPO Opposition ........................................................................... 13 
`The ’039 Patent and Prosecution History ............................................ 15 
`Prior Art ............................................................................................... 17 
`i. 
`Davison (Ex. 1009) ................................................................... 17 
`ii. 
`Guinot (Ex. 1010) ..................................................................... 20 
`iii.  Quattlebaum (Ex. 1007) ............................................................ 23 
`iv.  Walters (Ex. 1014) .................................................................... 24 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00003
`U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039
`
`
`v. 
`Smith (Ex. 1015) ....................................................................... 26 
`The Prior Art Is Highly Analogous. .......................................... 28 
`vi. 
`VII.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 30 
`VIII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 30 
`IX.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................... 33 
`A.  GROUND 1: Claims 1-5 Are Patent-Ineligible Under 35 U.S.C.
`§101. .................................................................................................... 33 
`i. 
`Legal Framework ...................................................................... 33 
`ii. 
`Claims 1-5 are not patent eligible. ............................................ 34 
`a. 
`Step 1: Claims 1-5 purport to claim a process. ............... 34 
`b. 
`Step 2A: Claims 1-5 are directed to an abstract
`idea. ................................................................................. 35 
`Step 2B: Claims 1-5 do not recite additional
`elements amounting to significantly more than the
`abstract idea. ................................................................... 42 
`GROUND 2: Claims 1-5 Are Indefinite ............................................. 45 
`B. 
`GROUND 3: Claims 1-5 Are Not Enabled. ........................................ 50 
`C. 
`D.  GROUND 4: Claims 1-5 Lack Written Description. .......................... 53 
`E. 
`GROUND 5: Claims 1-5 Are Anticipated by Davison. ...................... 54 
`i. 
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 55 
`a. 
`Preamble: “A method of manufacturing an
`enhanced shaped charge liner design for use in an
`oil/gas well perforator that is usable to form a
`desired hole shape in a rock formation, the method
`comprising” ..................................................................... 55 
`
`c. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00003
`U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039
`
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`Limitation 1[a]: “comparing the desired hole
`shape to a library of known liner designs, the
`library including data relating to a hole shape
`formed by each of the known liner designs within
`the library” ...................................................................... 56 
`Limitation 1[b]: “selecting a liner design from the
`known liner designs that produces a hole shape
`optimised to the desired hole shape” .............................. 57 
`Limitation 1[c]: “varying at least one parameter of
`the selected liner design to form a modified liner
`design” ............................................................................ 58 
`Limitation 1[d]: “modelling the hole shape that the
`modified liner design produces” ..................................... 59 
`Limitation 1[e]: “repeating
`the varying and
`modelling steps until the hole shape of the
`modified liner design converges towards the
`desired hole shape to thereby create a final liner
`design” ............................................................................ 60 
`Limitation 1[f]: “forming the enhanced shaped
`charge liner in accordance with the final liner
`design” ............................................................................ 60 
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 61 
`ii. 
`iii.  Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 62 
`iv. 
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 64 
`v. 
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 65 
`GROUND 6: Claims 2-4 Are Obvious Over Davison in view of
`Quattlebaum. ....................................................................................... 67 
`i. 
`Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 67 
`ii. 
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 68 
`
`e. 
`
`f. 
`
`g. 
`
`F. 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00003
`U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039
`
`
`I. 
`
`iii.  Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 69 
`iv. 
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 69 
`G.  GROUND 7: Claims 2-4 Are Obvious Over Davison in view of
`Walters. ................................................................................................ 70 
`i. 
`Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 70 
`ii. 
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 71 
`iii.  Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 73 
`iv. 
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 74 
`H.  GROUND 8: Claim 5 Is Obvious Over Davison in view of Smith.
` ............................................................................................................. 75 
`i. 
`Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 75 
`ii. 
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 76 
`GROUND 9: Claim 1 Is Anticipated by Guinot. ................................ 78 
`i. 
`Preamble .................................................................................... 78 
`ii. 
`Limitation 1[a] .......................................................................... 78 
`iii. 
`Limitation 1[b] .......................................................................... 79 
`iv. 
`Limitation 1[c] .......................................................................... 80 
`v. 
`Limitation 1[d] .......................................................................... 80 
`vi. 
`Limitation 1[e] .......................................................................... 83 
`vii.  Limitation 1[f] ........................................................................... 83 
`GROUND 10: Claims 1-4 Are Obvious Over Guinot in view of
`Quattlebaum. ....................................................................................... 84 
`i. 
`Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 84 
`ii. 
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 85 
`
`J. 
`
`iv
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00003
`U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039
`
`
`a. 
`Preamble ......................................................................... 85 
`Limitation 1[a] ................................................................ 86 
`b. 
`Limitation 1[b] ................................................................ 86 
`c. 
`Limitation 1[c] ................................................................ 87 
`d. 
`Limitation 1[d] ................................................................ 87 
`e. 
`Limitation 1[e] ................................................................ 88 
`f. 
`Limitation 1[f] ................................................................ 88 
`g. 
`iii.  Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 89 
`iv. 
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 89 
`v. 
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 89 
`K.  GROUND 11: Claims 2-4 Are Obvious Over Guinot in view of
`Walters. ................................................................................................ 90 
`i. 
`Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 90 
`ii. 
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 91 
`iii.  Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 91 
`iv. 
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 92 
`GROUND 12: Claim 5 As Obvious Over Guinot in view of
`Smith.................................................................................................... 92 
`i. 
`Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 92 
`ii. 
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 93 
`X.  NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS .................................................... 93 
`XI. 
`§325(D) DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS INAPPROPRIATE .................... 94 
`XII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 95
`
`L. 
`
`v
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00003
`U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 44
`Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014).................................................................... 33, 35, 42, 44
`Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) .......................................... 94
`Bowtech, Inc. v. MCP IP, LLC,
`IPR2019-00386, Paper 14 (PTAB July 3, 2019) ........................................... 95
`Brunswick Corp. v. Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC,
`IPR2020-01512, Paper 15 (PTAB Mar. 11, 2021) ........................................ 93
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 44
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ....................................................................... 31
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 41
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................................................................... 46
`Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC,
`979 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..................................................................... 28
`Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 39, 43
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Res. Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med.
`Ctr.,
`849 F.3d 1073 ................................................................................................ 54
`
`i
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00003
`U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharms., Inc.,
`471 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..................................................................... 54
`Fort Props, Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC,
`671 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 40
`In re Gleave,
`560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ..................................................................... 54
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) ......................................................................................... 40
`In re Chu,
`66 F.3d 292 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ........................................................................... 4
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................. 41, 42, 44, 47
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 46
`Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co.,
`780 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................... 54
`In re Killian,
`45 F.4th 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ......................................................... 39, 41, 43
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007)....................................................................................... 67
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ....................................................................... 6
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab’ys, Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) ......................................................................................... 42
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014)....................................................................................... 45
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................... 39
`
`ii
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00003
`U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039
`
`Schul Int’l Co., LLC v. Emseal Joint Sys., Ltd.,
`PGR2018-00034, 2018 WL 4043186 (PTAB Aug. 22, 2018) ........................ 4
`Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Products, Inc.,
`983 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..................................................................... 36
`U.S. Endodontics, LLC v. Gold Standard Instruments, LLC,
`PGR2015-00019, Paper 54 (PTAB Dec. 28, 2016) ........................................ 4
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ................................................................ 5, 53
`Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................... 40
`In re Wands,
`858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ................................................................ 51, 52
`Zurn Indus., LLC v. Sioux Chief Mfg. Co.,
`IPR2018-00975, Paper 9 (PTAB Nov. 8, 2018) ............................................ 94
`Statutes 
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ....................................................................................... 1, 33, 34, 94
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................... 1, 17, 20, 23, 24, 27, 54, 94
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................. 1, 67, 94
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................... 1, 4, 5, 6, 14, 16, 44, 53, 94
`35 U.S.C. § 321 .......................................................................................................... 8
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.204 ................................................................................................... 8
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.202 ................................................................................................... 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b) .................................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.203(a) ................................................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00003
`U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039 (“the ’039 Patent”)
`1002 File History for U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039
`1003 Declaration of Marco Serra
`1004 Decision revoking EP Patent 2,932,185
`1005 Prosecution History of Application No. 14/651,829
`1006 UK Patent App. GB 2510482
`1007 Clinton C. Quattlebaum, Kenneth Lee Borgen, Zhenyu Xue, and Peter B.
`Wilkinson, Optimizing Perforating Charge Design for Stimulation, SPE
`Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX (October
`2012)
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 3,100,445 (“Poulter”)
`1009 David Davison and Dan Pratt, A Hydrocode-Designed well Perforator with
`Exceptional Performance, 17th International Symposium on Ballistics in
`Midrand, South Africa (March 1998) (“Davison”)
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 6,283,214 (“Guinot”)
`1011 European Patent No. 2 932 185 B1
`1012 Notice of Opposition to EP2932185, dated May 30, 2018
`1013 European Preliminary Opinion re European Patent App. No. 13 803 074.7,
`dated Dec. 2, 2019
`1014 William P. Walters and Jonas A. Zukas, Fundamentals of Shaped Charges
`(1989) (“Walters”)
`1015 P.S. Smith, L.A. Behrmann, and Wenbo Young, Improvements in
`Perforating Performance in High Compressive Strength Rocks, 1997 SPE
`European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, Netherlands by
`(June 1997) (“Smith”)
`1016 Chris Poole, Penetration of a Shaped Charge (2005) (Ph.D. thesis, Corpus
`Christi College, University of Oxford)
`1017 Declaration of Elizabeth Fuller
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00003
`U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039
`
`
`CLAIM LISTING1
`
`Number
`1
`Preamble
`
`1 [a]
`
`1 [b]
`
`1 [c]
`
`1 [d]
`
`1 [e]
`
`1 [f]
`
`
`
`Limitation
`1. A method of manufacturing an enhanced shaped charge liner
`design for use in an oil/gas well perforator that is usable to form a
`desired hole shape in a rock formation, the method comprising
`
`comparing the desired hole shape to a library of known liner
`
` designs, the library including data relating to a hole shape
`
` formed by each of the known liner designs within the
`
`
` library;
`
`selecting a liner design from the known liner designs that
`
` produces a hole shape optimised to the desired hole shape
`
`varying at least one parameter of the selected liner design to
`
` form a modified liner design;
`
`modelling the hole shape that the modified liner design
`
` produces;
`
`repeating the varying and modelling steps until the hole shape
`
` of the modified liner design converges towards the desired
`
` hole shape to thereby create a final liner design; and
`
`forming the enhanced shaped charge liner in accordance with
`
` the final liner design.
`2.
`The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the varying step
`comprises varying a thickness of the selected liner design.
`3.
`The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein selected shaped
`charge liner design defines an internal apex angle, and the varying
`step comprises varying the internal apex angle of the selected liner
`design.
`4.
`The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the varying step
`comprises varying a liner material of the selected liner design.
`The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the data for the plurality
`of liner designs includes the hole shape each of the plurality of liner
`designs produces in a range of different rock strata,
`
`1 Since the Petition presents the claim listing in its body in fragments and grouped
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5[a]
`
`by limitation type rather than in numerical order, all claim limitations are presented
`
`together here so the Panel may easily view them in order and in context.
`
`v
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00003
`U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039
`
`
`Number
`5[b]
`
`Limitation
`the method further comprising filtering the data for the plurality of
`liner designs against rock conditions for a particular well
`environment.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00003
`U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH and DynaEnergetics US, Inc. (“Petitioners”)
`
`respectfully request Post-Grant Review (“PGR”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039
`
`(“the ’039 Patent”) (Ex. 1001) and the cancellation of claims 1-5 (the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) under 35 U.S.C. §§101, 102, 103, and 112. Importantly, a nearly identical
`
`European counterpart to the ’039 Patent has already been invalidated through
`
`opposition proceedings at the European Patent Office (“EPO”). For the similar and
`
`additional reasons described herein, the Challenged Claims are likewise invalid.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`The real parties-in-interest are DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH and
`
`DynaEnergetics US, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Petitioners state that Patent Owner has not asserted the ’039 Patent against
`
`Petitioners, and there are therefore no other judicial or administrative matters that
`
`would affect, or be affected by, a decision in the proceeding.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel
`Lisa J. Moyles
`Registration No. 40,737
`Moyles IP, LLC
`
`Backup Counsel
`Barry J. Herman
`Registration No. 51,254
`Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
`
`1
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00003
`U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`1 Enterprise Drive, Suite 428
`Shelton, CT 06484
`T: (203) 428-4420
`F: (866) 250-1636
`lmoyles@moylesip.com
`patdocket@moylesip.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Backup Counsel
`100 Light Street, 26th Floor
`Baltimore, MD 21202
`T: (410) 545-5830
`F: (443) 769-1530
`Barry.Herman@wbd-us.com
`
`Preston H. Heard
`Registration No. 64,675
`Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
`271 17th St. N.W., Suite 2400
`Atlanta, GA 30363
`T: (404) 888-7366
`F: (404) 879-2966
`Preston.Heard@wbd-us.com
`
`Jason D. Radachy
`Registration No. 64,360
`Moyles IP, LLC
`1 Enterprise Drive, Suite 428
`Shelton, CT 06484
`T: (203) 428-4420
`F: (866) 250-1636
`jradachy@moylesip.com
`
`Jason M. Rockman
`Registration No. 63,473
`Moyles IP, LLC
`1 Enterprise Drive, Suite 428
`Shelton, CT 06484
`T: (203) 428-4420
`F: (866) 250-1636
`jrockman@moylesip.com
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00003
`U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Backup Counsel
`Janelle O'Neill
`Registration No. 73,860
`Moyles IP, LLC
`1 Enterprise Drive, Suite 428
`Shelton, CT 06484
`T: (203) 428-4420
`F: (866) 250-1636
`joneill@moylesip.com
`
`
`D.
`Service Information
`Petitioners consent to service by electronic mail to lead and backup counsel
`
`at the e-mail addresses listed above.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`Petitioners authorize the Office to charge the fees specified by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§42.203(a), 42.15(b) to Deposit Account 09-0528 as well as any additional fees
`
`that might be due in connection with this Petition.
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION
`The ’039 Patent issued from a “transition application.” The ’039 Patent issued
`
`January 4, 2022, from U.S. Patent Application 15/930,939 (the “’939 Application”),
`
`filed May 13, 2020, long after the AIA’s effective date of March 16, 2013. However,
`
`the ’939 Application is a continuation of Application No. 16/704,524 filed
`
`December 5, 2019, which is continuation of Application No. 14/651,829 (the “’829
`
`Application”) filed December 13, 2013, which claims priority to GB Patent
`
`3
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00003
`U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039
`
`Application No. 1222474 (the “GB ’474 Application”), filed December 13, 2012.
`
`Despite being transitional, the ’039 Patent is PGR eligible because it contains, and
`
`its priority applications contained, claims with an effective filing date after March
`
`16, 2013. AIA §3(n)(1).
`
`“[A] patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier
`
`filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for
`
`the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.” In re Chu, 66
`
`F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Importantly, for a transition application to receive
`
`the benefit of a pre-AIA filing date, the claims must satisfy both by the written
`
`description and enablement requirements based on a pre-AIA specification. See
`
`Schul Int’l Co., LLC v. Emseal Joint Sys., Ltd., PGR2018-00034, 2018 WL 4043186,
`
`at *4 (PTAB Aug. 22, 2018) (citations omitted); U.S. Endodontics, LLC v. Gold
`
`Standard Instruments, LLC, PGR2015-00019, Paper 54, at 7-8 (PTAB Dec. 28,
`
`2016) (determining effective filing date based on enablement).
`
`In two respects, the GB ’474 Application fails to satisfy § 112 regarding the
`
`Challenged Claims of the ’039 Patent. First, as described in detail below, certain
`
`terms in the Challenged Claims violate the written description requirement and/or
`
`the enablement requirement. See infra Sections IX.C-IX.D. Because the
`
`specification of the ’039 Patent is substantially identical to that of the GB ’474
`
`Application, § 112 support for the Challenged Claims is likewise absent from the
`
`4
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00003
`U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039
`
`GB ’474 Application, which is the only pre-AIA filing in the chain of priority.
`
`Compare Ex. 1001 with Ex. Ex. 1006.
`
`Second, the “forming” limitation of ’039 Patent claim 1—“forming the
`
`enhanced shaped charge liner in accordance with the final liner design”—lacks
`
`written description support in the GB ’474 Application. To satisfy the written
`
`description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the disclosure of the earlier filed
`
`application must “convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as
`
`of the filing date sought, [the inventor] was in possession of the invention.” Vas-
`
`Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The forming
`
`limitation was not disclosed in the GB ’474 Application. That specification lacks
`
`any details, discussion, or direct reference to manufacturing a shaped charge liner.
`
`Ex. 1006. Tellingly, when Patent Owner tried to amend the claims of European
`
`counterpart EP2932185, which also shares a specification with the GB ’474
`
`Application, to add a similar “forming” step, the Opposition Division rejected the
`
`proposed amendment under Article 123(2) EPC, which imposes a similar standard
`
`as the § 112 written description requirement. Ex. 1004 at 12-14; see infra Section
`
`VI.B. Thus, neither the GB ’474 Application nor any subsequent applications in the
`
`chain of priority demonstrates that, as of December 13, 2012, the inventor was in
`
`possession of the forming limitation.
`
`5
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00003
`U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039
`
`
`Additionally, the ’039 Patent is PGR-eligible because an application in its
`
`chain of priority is PGR-eligible. When a priority claim involves a chain of priority
`
`documents, “each application in the chain leading back to the earlier application
`
`must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.”
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Indeed, the
`
`AIA explicitly applies to applications that “contain[] or contained at any time” a
`
`claim with an effective filing date after March 16, 2013. AIA §3(n)(1) (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`During prosecution of the ’829 Application, Patent Owner sought to claim the
`
`following:
`
`1. A shaped charge liner comprising …, wherein a cross section of the
`liner in a plane perpendicular to the main liner axis has a star-
`shaped cross section, preferably a four or five pointed star.
`
`7. A liner as claimed in claim [1], wherein each end of the prism
`comprises a half cone shape.
`
`Ex. 1005 at 423-426. That is, claim 7 purports to claim a liner with a “star-shaped
`
`cross section” (claim 1) “wherein each end of the prism comprises a half cone
`
`shape” (claim 7). However, the only disclosure of a liner “wherein each end of the
`
`prism comprises a half cone shape” does not have a star-shaped cross section:
`
`6
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00003
`U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 4. And the only embodiment with a star-shaped cross section does
`
`not have ends comprising half cone shapes:
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 6. There is simply no description in the GB ’474 Application of a
`
`liner with both a star-shaped cross section and a half cone shape. Unsurprisingly, the
`
`examiner rejected claim 7 because, “if the prismatic liner has a star-shaped cross-
`
`section as recited in claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, … the circular features of
`
`7
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00003
`U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039
`
`each half-cone would prevent the cross-section of the liner from being star-shaped
`
`and vice versa.” Ex. 1005 at 374. The Patent Owner ultimately amended claim 7 to
`
`completely remove the half-cone limitation. Id. at 359. The GB ’474 Application
`
`thus does not support the written description of claim 7 of the ’829 Application.
`
`Consequently, the ’829 Application cannot claim the pre-AIA filing date of the GB
`
`’474 Application, and neither can the ’039 Patent, which traces its priority to the
`
`’829 Application.
`
`Finally, Petitioners certify that this Petition is being filed “not later than the
`
`date that is 9 months after date of the grant of the patent” and that they are not barred
`
`or estopped from requesting PGR of the ’039 Patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`35 U.S.C. §321(c); 37 C.F.R. §§42.202, 42.204(a).
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioners request that the Board initiate post-grant review of claims 1-5 of
`
`the ’039 Patent and find them unpatentable on the following grounds:
`
`Ground Claims
`1
`1-5
`2
`1-5
`3
`1-5
`4
`1-5
`5
`1-5
`6
`2-4
`
`7
`8
`9
`
`2-4
`5
`1
`
`Basis
`
`35 U.S.C. §101
`35 U.S.C. §112 – Indefinite
`35 U.S.C. §112 – Not Enabled
`35 U.S.C. §112 – Written Description
`35 U.S.C. §102 – Anticipated by Davison
`35 U.S.C. §103 – Obvious over Davison in view of
`Quattlebaum
`35 U.S.C. §103 – Obvious over Davison in view of Walters
`35 U.S.C. §103 – Obvious over Davison in view of Smith
`35 U.S.C. §102 – Anticipated by Guinot
`
`8
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00003
`U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039
`
`
`Ground Claims
`10
`1-4
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. §103 – Obvious over Guinot in view of
`Quattlebaum
`35 U.S.C. §103 – Obvious over Guinot in view of Walters
`35 U.S.C. §103 – Obvious over Guinot in view of Smith
`
`11
`12
`
`2-4
`5
`
`
`
`Additional support is set forth in Exhibit 1003, the Declaration of Marco Serra,
`
`Ph.D., whose testimony is offered as evidence of the knowledge that one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have possessed at the time of the claimed invention.
`
`VI. BACKGROUND
`A. Technology Background
`The ’039 Patent is generally directed to explosive charges (“shaped charges”)
`
`detonated deep underground in oil and gas wells to perforate rock formations and
`
`liberate the oil and gas trapped in the rock. Ex. 1003 ¶11.
`
`i.
`Shaped charges and perforating
`A shaped charge (shown below) consists of three primary components—a
`
`case, an explosive, and a liner. Ex. 1003 ¶12. The explosive is conventionally
`
`positioned between the case and the liner. Id.
`
`9
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00003
`U.S. Patent No. 11,215,039
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1009, Fig. 3. The liner is typically formed from a pressed metal powder in a
`
`conical or hemispherical shape depending on the desired perforation characteristics.
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶13. Initiating the explosive accelerates the liner out of the case as a jet of
`
`collapsed liner material. Id. In typical operations, after detonation, the jet perforates
`
`a metal carrier housing the shaped charge, a wellbore casing lining the well, a
`
`concrete barrier around the wellbore casing, and then finally the rock formation
`
`surrounding the wellbore, thereby creating a