`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`REACTIVE SURFACES LTD., LLP,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 1, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM,
`and MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`DAVID O. SIMMONS, ESQUIRE
`IVC Patent Agency
`P.O. Box 26584
`Austin, Texas 78755
`
`
`
`and
`
`
`MARK A.J. FASSOLD, ESQUIRE
`Watts Guerra, LLP
`4 Dominion Drive, Building 3, Suite 100
`San Antonio, Texas 78257
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`JOHN D. LUKEN, ESQUIRE
`JOSHUA LORENTZ, ESQUIRE
`OLEG KHARITON, ESQUIRE
`Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP
`255 East Fifth Street
`Suite 1900
`Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on
`Wednesday, November 1, 2017, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street,
`Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: Good afternoon. We are here for
`the oral hearing in IPR2016-01462. I'm Judge Abraham. With
`me here in Alexandria is Judge Ankenbrand, and with us
`remotely from our Denver office is Judge Kaiser. This case
`involves U.S. patent number 8,324,295, Reactive Services
`Limited, LLP versus Toyota Motor Corp.
`I'm going to ask in a second for appearances from
`counsel. Because Judge Kaiser is participating remotely, I'm
`going to ask that you come to the lectern and speak into the
`microphone so he can hear you. So we'll start with counsel for
`petitioner.
`MR. SIMMONS: Good morning. David Simmons here
`for petitioner, Reactive Services. With me is my colleague, Mark
`Fassold.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: Welcome. Patent owner?
`MR. LUKEN: Good afternoon. John Luken from
`Dinsmore & Shohl on behalf of patent owner, Toyota Motor
`Corp. With me is my partner, Josh Lorentz, and Oleg Khariton.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: Welcome. Pursuant to the order
`that we entered on October 25, 2017, each side will have
`30 minutes to present their argument. Petitioner, bearing the
`burden of proof for unpatentability, will go first. You may
`reserve time for rebuttal. Just let me know how much time you
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`would like. Once they are complete with their opening, patent
`owner, you may proceed. You have the full 30 minutes if you
`would like to take the time. Then petitioner, if you have any time
`left in rebuttal, you can respond to their presentation.
`I'm going to just emphasize again that when you are
`speaking, please speak into the microphone so Judge Kaiser can
`hear. If you are using slides, we have the electronic versions that
`you submitted. Please refer to the slide number specifically. It
`helps for the record and also so Judge Kaiser can follow along
`because he cannot see the screen that's here, but he has the slides.
`So if you refer to the slide number, he'll be able to follow along.
`With that, I'll let petitioner take the lectern. And just let
`me know, would you like to reserve time for rebuttal?
`MR. SIMMONS: Yes, Your Honor, I would like to
`reserve 15 minutes of rebuttal of the total 30-minute time.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: So I'll start the clock whenever
`you are ready.
`MR. SIMMONS: Good afternoon, Judges Kaiser,
`Abraham, and Ankenbrand. I'm David Simmons here to present
`oral arguments for petitioner, Reactive Services. And to get
`started, I will be referring to various slides. And just so you
`know, I will be calling them out -- I will be skipping through
`some slides, so I will call them out accordingly.
`So to get started today, I would like to touch upon three
`different points of oral argument which I have here on slide
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`number 2, the first being the 5 percent UV absorber limitation,
`the second being the emulsion limitation and the third being the
`10 percent transmittance limitation.
`And starting with the first one, the 5 percent UV
`absorber limitation, moving to slide number 3, we see that the 5
`percent UV absorber limitation has actually five independent
`claims. The first two, independent claims 1 and 23 set forth in
`the petition, have been asserted as being obvious over McDaniel,
`and independent claims 5, 13 and 24 as being rejected as obvious
`over McDaniel '853 in view of Fritzsche. And of note here, I
`would make mention that with respect to independent claims 5,
`13 and 24, both McDaniel '853 and Fritzsche disclose subject
`matter that's relevant to the obviousness of the 5 percent UV
`absorber limitation. And I'll touch on that in subsequent slides.
`Moving to slide number 4, here I would like to discuss
`briefly representative claims that each include the disputed
`limitation. So looking at actually claim number 1, just for
`discussion, pointing out that claim number 1 is directed to a
`curable protein-polymer composition. And we see that it has a
`polymer resin, cross-linker, bioactive enzyme, at least two UV
`light stabilizers, one of the light stabilizers being a sterically
`hindered amine and the second being a UV absorber.
`And the disputed limitation in this claim as well as the
`other four independent claims, particular to claims 1, 5, 23 and 24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`is the language in yellow in claim 1, which is, “said UV absorber
`present at a concentration in excess of 5 percent by weight.”
`And corresponding language in claim 13 is recited a bit
`differently with respect to the range recited as at least 5 percent
`UV absorber by weight. Notable here, which we'll carry through
`the rest of the argument, is that by weight is actually, I would say,
`undisputed by the parties to mean final dry weight, which is
`notable for the fact that final dry weight is actually the total
`weight of nonvolatile components. So those would be the
`components remaining after evaporation of volatile components,
`such as water or an organic solvent.
`Also, which we'll carry into the subsequent discussion
`or argument, I should say, is that if we look at the range in all the
`claims, the range is actually unbound at its upper end. So notable
`here is that the range is in excess of 5 percent, and in claim 13 the
`range is at least 5 percent. So I'll touch upon that, but important
`to note that here.
`As well as it's important to note that if you look, each of
`the claims recites said UV absorber. Said UV absorber, which I'll
`discuss or touch upon, is a class of material rather than a specific
`material itself. So for example, in cases cited in these
`proceedings such as Applied Materials, Titanium Metals or
`Peterson, I believe this language distinguishes with respect to
`those case because in those cases, for example, in Titanium
`Metals, Peterson, those are both concerned with alloyed metals.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`And in those cases the element that was being optimized was a
`specific material rather than a class of material. And in here the
`claims are directed to classes of materials. So UV absorber is a
`class of material. And if we look up above, we see in claim 1
`bioactive enzyme. So again, it's claiming a class of material
`rather than a specific material. And similar language is in the
`remaining claims.
`So moving on, I'm going to skip now to actually go to
`slide -- I'm sorry, let me go the slide number 8. So slide
`number 8, this information on this slide is directed McDaniel '853
`anticipating the claimed UV absorber ranges. And as we see
`from Titanium Metals, when a patent claim is a range, that range
`is anticipated by a prior art reference if the reference discloses a
`point within that range.
`And on the left-hand side of slide 8 is the disclosure
`from McDaniel that the Board previously found in the institution
`decision to be additives used in a coating at a concentration of
`.001 to 10 percent to 20 percent by weight and that that additive
`can actually -- is actually a UV absorber. So that disclosure sets
`forth the UV absorber being an overlapping range of .001 to
`20 percent relative to the disputed limitation of 5 percent UV
`absorber concentration.
`And that language is supported further by, if we go
`down below on the left-hand side, the disclosure of McDaniel
`'853 actually at paragraph 711 that further discloses that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`individual coatings can be used at concentrations of .001 to
`20 percent and that a single additive can be used in a coating at
`.001 to 10 percent. So again, further supporting the disclosure
`that McDaniel discloses an overlapping range of at least .001 to
`20 percent or .001 to 10 percent.
`Also, if we look at the language, we see that the
`McDaniel disclosed ranges are disclosed as including all
`intermediate ranges and combinations thereof. On the right-hand
`side we see that including all intermediate ranges and
`combinations thereof includes all integers. And McDaniel, down
`below on the right-hand side, we see, discloses specific integers.
`So it's petitioner's position that the totality of this
`disclosure is that McDaniel is actually disclosing specific points
`of UV absorber concentration that lie within the claimed range
`and thus anticipate the claimed ranges of 5 percent UV
`absorber -- of at least 5 percent UV absorber and in excess of 5
`percent UV absorber.
`I'm going to skip ahead to slide number 10. Slide 10 on
`the left-hand side discloses very similar language or the same
`language that I previously discussed as far as McDaniel's
`disclosures. And on the right-hand side we will see two
`additional references of record which are Fritzsche and the '027
`patent, as they are referred to.
`And notable here is that when a person of ordinary skill
`interprets the disclosures of McDaniel, they would interpret that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`relative to their body of knowledge in their possession. Part of
`that is based on the prior art of record, and that prior art of record
`in Fritzsche discloses overlapping UV absorber ranges from .1 to
`up to 30 percent. And similarly, the '027 patent discloses
`overlapping ranges as well.
`So moving to slide number 12, so here I'm going to
`discuss the point I made earlier regarding UV absorber and
`enzymes being claimed as classes of material and the impact that
`has on assertions of optimization for achieving unexpected
`results. And specifically, if we look at the chart on the right-hand
`side in Figure 8, slide 12, we see that with increasing UV
`absorber concentration there's actually diminishing returns.
`So over the unbound range of the UV absorber
`concentrations, there's no data in the '295 patent that would
`support that there would be an unexpected result up to an
`unbound range of UV absorber. And actually, if anything, the
`data actually suggests the opposite, that at some point of UV
`absorber concentration, what's on the Y axis is enzyme activity,
`that there would be a cessation of enzyme activity based on the
`trends we see in the green boxes on Figure 8 chart to the right.
`And so based on that, the unexpected results do not
`extend critically across the entire claimed range, which is a
`necessity for attempting to overcome obviousness based on that
`range being critical, for example, rather than claiming that the
`range is 5 percent to 8 percent. That would be an optimization,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`perhaps, of a particular range in contrast to the unbound range not
`actually showing that there's an unexpected result across the
`entire range. So I'll leave it at that.
`Moving on to slide 13, this carries on to the point I
`made of claiming a class of material rather than a specific
`material such as in the case of an alloy, whether you are claiming
`molybdenum or vanadium, a specific material, that would be an
`example of what the claimed subject matter in the cases of, for
`example, Peterson and Titanium Metals.
`Here we see the importance of the impact of claiming a
`class of material, which is if you look on the left-hand side of the
`screen, we have deposition testimony of patent owner's expert,
`Dr. Dordick. And he admits that there are literally thousands of
`enzymes, and those enzymes are not equally susceptible to UV
`light. He says that some of are much more susceptible than
`others. And we actually see that on the right-hand side in
`Figure 2 where the red boxes actually show that exposure to UV
`light to an alpha amylase enzyme actually entirely inactivates the
`enzyme. And for that same amount of light for a different
`enzyme such as a thermolysin which is the vertical boxes that the
`red boxes overlay, we see for that same exposure to UV light
`there's only a marginal decrease in the enzyme activity.
`So as far as asserting that there's any type of
`optimization as far as the claimed language goes, there can't be an
`optimization when you are not specifying a specific enzyme for
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`the simple fact that one enzyme may require a certain percentage
`of UV absorber to achieve the unexpected result. And as we see
`here with the thermolysin, arguably, no UV absorber, I should
`say, is actually necessary for achieving the alleged unexpected
`result because it doesn't have the sensitivity. So it doesn't have
`the inherent sensitivity to UV light. So this goes to the point of
`an assertion of optimization for achieving unexpected results or
`goes against that, I should say, because a specific enzyme is not
`claimed rather than a class of enzyme is claimed.
`And if we go to the box at the bottom, we see that in all
`subsequent working examples, the enzyme that was actually the
`subject of the working examples was then limited to
`alpha-amylase and it was also limited to a particular UV absorber,
`which we see the green box at the bottom, Tinuvin T400. But
`notably here, there's not a single claim in the '295 patent that's
`directed to that combination as far as the specific claim language
`goes. There's not a single claim that's to an alpha-amylase in
`combination with also the claim to that specific active ingredient
`for Tinuvin T400 which is essentially what the patent asserts if
`there is an alleged optimization is it's around that specific
`combination of enzyme and UV absorber.
`So moving on to slide 14, here we see actually further
`evidence of the fact that UV absorber is critical to determining
`optimization. So on the left-hand side we see Tinuvin T400 and
`Tinuvin 384-2. And we see difference in enzyme activity based
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`on selection of UV absorber. So even though Tinuvin T400 was
`used for the working examples, we see just by going to a different
`UV absorber, there's a marked improvement in the result of
`enzyme activity. You retain more enzyme activity just through
`selection of a different UV absorber even though the
`concentration stays the same.
`And that's illustrated very critically on the right-hand
`side. If you look at Figure 5C on the right-hand side, there is a
`horizontal red line. I'm going to speak to that in a moment in
`what I refer to as the 10 percent transmittance limitation. The
`criticality of this is it shows that the '295 patent actually sets forth
`that that is the critical element of the alleged UV stabilization is
`achieving that 380. I'll show that in a moment. But what that is,
`is that's 380 nanometers. What that's saying is that you actually
`retain 380 -- I'm sorry, 10 percent transmittance at 380
`nanometers. And we see that Tinuvin 384-2 achieves that far
`below 5 percent. It actually achieves that at nominally, based on
`the green box, that's 2 percent.
`And next I'm going to move on, actually, quickly here
`to slide 24. And in slide 24 we see on the left-hand side that both
`experts -- I'm sorry, patent owner's expert, Dr. Iezzi, has testified
`that the undisputed UV absorber concentration of McDaniel 5
`percent based on binder weight is actually equal to 4.5 percent
`final dry weight. And it's undisputed that the working examples
`of the '295 patent are actually clear coats. So for a clearcoat,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`McDaniel's undisputed 5 percent UV absorber based on binder
`weight is equivalent to 4.5 percent final dry weight.
`And moving on to slide 25, we see when we overlay
`that onto Figure 8 of the '295 patent, McDaniel's 4.5 percent final
`dry weight actually achieves the unexpected result. It actually
`achieves that post weathering there is a maintained UV -- I'm
`sorry, a maintained enzyme activity. So this goes against the fact
`that there is an unexpected result because McDaniel's 5 percent
`UV absorber based on binder weight, even though it's only 4.5
`percent based on final dry weight, achieves the unexpected results
`of UV stabilization for enzyme activity.
`I'm going to skip through to actually slide 38 here. So
`going to --
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: Just so you know, you have gone
`over your 15 minutes. You are free to keep going. It's just going
`to cut into your rebuttal time.
`MR. SIMMONS: Let me add just a few minutes, if I
`could, Your Honor. A couple more points I wanted to make is
`the 10 percent transmittance limitation is really the alleged
`inventive step. And as I mentioned before in the previous slide,
`380 nanometers is the wavelength range that was alleged to be
`critical for maintaining enzyme activity. But if we look here, I'm
`going to point out a couple things very quickly, the composition
`of claim 1 wherein said UV absorber has 10 percent cutoff at a
`wavelength at or in excess of 380 nanometers, first point of note,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`and I'll discuss this in a moment, is UV absorber does not convey
`this limitation. UV absorber itself is cannot convey 10 percent
`cutoff. And I'll discuss that.
`Moving on to actually slide 43 first, I'm going to show
`that in the prior art, the claimed transmission cutoff ranges were
`actually well known. So here is a prior art reference. We see if
`we look at the two red lines, the intersections, they intersect at the
`alleged key points of 10 percent transmittance and 380
`nanometers. We see very clearly for BZT UV absorber as shown
`in the header for Figure 6.27, which is disclosed to be a
`commercially available Tinuvin UV absorber for a film thickness
`of 2 mills and a concentration of 3.5 percent, we see that was
`easily obtained to achieve the 10 percent transmittance limitation.
`And critically here, my point about UV absorber not
`being capable of conveying that limitation is that to actually state
`transmittance, you need film thickness or at least a reference film
`thickness, you need to know the specific UV absorber so that you
`know its efficiency, and you need to know the percent
`concentration.
`And I'm going to skip forward here to slide 48. In slide
`
`48 --
`
`JUDGE KAISER: Before you do that, I'm sorry, so I
`think your argument, in your briefs at least, is that the
`optimization of film thickness and UV absorber concentration to
`achieve the claimed result, that is a claimed UV transmission
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`percentage at a claimed wavelength, is within the skill of a person
`of ordinary skill in the art. And I'm sure that that's correct. I
`guess my question is where is the argument for why they would
`want to achieve these values in particular?
`MR. SIMMONS: I can point to that. If we go to slide
`46, so slide 46 at the top left, we actually see that the light
`emitted from the sun is actually directly in the claimed range. So
`it's been known for probably a hundred years that the sun emits
`light from 240 to 400 nanometers. And the UV from the sun that
`actually reaches the earth is directly over the asserted unique
`range which is 280 to 400 nanometers. And as Dr. Dordick, as
`we see on the left-hand side here says, it's been well known
`phenomena that UV light inactivates enzymes.
`So if you look at the right-hand side of the screen, this
`is the transmittance spectrum for a commercially available UV
`absorber. And we see that UV absorbers are actually inherently
`designed to have performance over that range of UV light that is
`actually emitted from the sun. And the reason for that is whether
`we are talking about an additive being a pigment or an additive
`being a UV absorber, they need to be protected the same. So if
`you have a car with a white pigment versus a blue pigment, they
`both have to be protected from the sun, the effects of the sun just
`as does an enzyme. So I'll say inherently it's the actual range of
`UV light that would lead a person to say we need to actually
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`protect this enzyme from this inherent UV range that's actually
`from the larger source of UV, which is the sun.
`JUDGE KAISER: I think that answers the question
`with respect to the claimed or the recited wavelengths, but what
`about the 10 percent? Where does that come from as opposed to,
`you know, achieving 5 percent or 1 percent or 50 percent?
`MR. SIMMONS: I think that is, Your Honor, I would
`say, is relative to the prior art is somewhat ambiguously set
`because the prior art actually teaches far greater transmittance
`reductions than 10 percent. So I don't know if there is a technical
`reason of selecting 10 percent more than it being a range that was
`selected, but in the prior art, as I showed in slide 38, I believe it
`was, it was actually -- slide 43, that achieving far less than 10
`percent was well known in the art.
`Typically, as petitioner's expert testified, you want to
`drive down the transmittance as much as possible. The more you
`can drive it down, the better protection you receive. So it's well
`known to actually achieve a transmittance level below 10 percent
`rather than limiting it only to 10 percent.
`And at this point -- one last thing. Here, I was touching
`on Beer's Law. And Beer's Law, last thing I'll say, is Beer's Law
`shows that extinction -- I'm at slide 48. Extinction is essentially
`the efficiency of a UV absorber. Then we have film thickness, in
`this case, clearcoat, and we have concentration. And it's those
`three parameters that actually dictate transmittance. So again,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`this shows that the variables are actually well known to be
`results-effective variables.
`And also this leaves it to a person of ordinary skill in
`the art that it was very predictable and through routine
`experimentation that they would be able to actually fine tune and
`optimize UV absorber concentration relative to transmittance and
`thus, also control for a given enzyme in a given UV absorber,
`actually able to control the resulting effect on enzyme activity.
`So at this point that's all I have. And I would like to
`reserve the remaining time for rebuttal, Your Honors.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: Okay. You have six minutes left
`for rebuttal.
`MR. LUKEN: Thank you for your patience. As I said
`before, I'm John Luken from the Dinsmore Firm in Cincinnati on
`behalf of patent owner, Toyota Motor Corporation. I'm going to
`try to walk through, assuming I don't use up all of my time on the
`first issue or two, basically three collections of points.
`And I'm on slide 2 here, first dealing primarily with the
`core 5 percent issues and the overlapping range, et cetera, with
`respect to claims 1, 5, 23 and 24, although that obviously is one
`of the grounds or one of the arguments for claim 13 as well.
`Then we'll move to claim 13 and deal with the emulsion issues,
`and then hopefully have enough time to address the dependent
`claims that have the specific ranges.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`
`So starting with claims with the 5 percent issues in
`claims 1, 5, 3 and 24, and I'm now on slide 3. Claim 1 is
`representative of this group. They all require that the UV
`absorber be present at a concentration in excess of 5 percent by
`weight.
`
`JUDGE KAISER: Mr. Luken, how high does that
`range go? I mean, would a person of ordinary skill in the art -- I
`presume there's other stuff in the claim that's required to be there,
`so it doesn't go up to 100 percent, but other than excluding the
`point of 100 percent UV absorber, would a person of ordinary
`skill in the art interpret any other limit on that recited range?
`MR. LUKEN: I don't know that it suggests a precise
`one. I think effectively, it would be well below 100 by the time
`one added in the binder, the polymers when added in, the other
`additives, which typically include color and pigments, the
`enzyme itself that McDaniel indicates can be as much as up to
`40 percent. So it does not have a precise upper bound. And I
`think the only suggestion anywhere that it needs to or that it
`should is whether there's a criticality or an unexpected results
`claim, which I think puts the cart before the horse entirely here
`because the issue is whether there's even a prima facie case of
`obviousness that would need to be rebutted by that. So I don't
`think there needs to be an effective upper bound. Nor does there
`need to be criticality at any point along that range.
`JUDGE KAISER: Thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`
`MR. LUKEN: The suggestion in the petition which has
`migrated a bit over the course of the case is that McDaniel itself
`is the one that teaches the range of UV absorbers, and primarily
`McDaniel paragraph 82. It's important to notice, and I'm now on
`slide 4, that McDaniel 82 -- bear with me because I want to make
`sure I am, in fact, on slide 4. I am. McDaniel 82 is in the general
`description of the invention. Not the specific detailed description
`that follows in the lengthy and voluminous paragraphs that are
`after the beginning part. And it lists all of 38 different types of
`additives. And in the details and even within paragraph 82, a
`number of those categories of additives have themselves tens or
`more of specific additives. So these 38 types of additives that are
`discussed in paragraph 82 comprise probably hundreds and
`hundreds, if not conceivably into four digits, in the types of
`additives that it's discussing here.
`So as we move to slide 5, and in particular, the
`reference that petitioner relies upon that says in some aspects the
`additive comprises .001 to 20 percent, that is not teaching .001 to
`20 percent for every one of those 38 categories of additives, much
`less for every additive within any of those categories at all,
`including UV absorbers.
`JUDGE KAISER: How do we know which ones that's
`limited to?
`MR. LUKEN: I don't think we do know precisely the
`range for all of them. I think what this indicates is that there may
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`be some that cover that entire range, although that in itself is less
`than clear. In some aspects does not necessarily mean that.
`It could also be definitional. And we talked about that
`in our brief at pages 21 to 22 as well. And Dr. Lamb, their
`expert, seemed to agree with that, that 20 percent could be
`thought of as the upper limit of when something is added. It's no
`longer an additive. It's a primary component.
`In any event, what McDaniel does do is for a number of
`additives or classes, it gives very particularized numbers. And
`when it says in some aspects it's that much, at most that would
`suggest that there are some unnamed, and I think there are some
`specified in the detailed description, that use most or all of that
`range, UV absorbers not being one of those. But for others,
`McDaniel gives specific ranges.
`This perhaps is simply a range of ranges. Nothing goes
`below .001 or nothing goes above 20. But it certainly does not
`say that this is everything, that this number, this entire range, that
`wide range applies to each and every additive in each and every
`of 38 different categories. If that was what they wanted to say,
`there are many, many different ways to say it. And that's not the
`way to do it.
`McDaniel does not -- now I'm on slide 6, does not
`reasonably suggest its range. So I have just discussed the first
`issue that we raised in the brief, that that's not what the language
`means. But Dr. Dordick addresses how that language, that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`paragraph would be understood by one skilled in the art. And
`first Dr. Dordick explains that a POSITA would understand that
`many of the additives in paragraph 82 would diminish or even
`completely destroy enzyme activity even at very low
`concentrations. He gives examples in his declaration down as
`low as well under 5, as low as 1 or 2, and that certainly when you
`are getting up near the high teens, close to 20, it can be very
`harmful. A POSITA would understand that you would have other
`harmful side effects at concentrations approaching 20 percent.
`JUDGE ANKENBRAND: Has Dr. Dordick opined as
`to a range for UV absorbers, though? So I'm seeing
`preservatives, wetting agents, dispersants. I'm seeing some types
`of additives, but not UV absorbers. So is there an opinion from
`Dr. Dordick as to whether a certain range of UV absorber would
`diminish or completely destroy enzyme activity, or is Dr. Dordick
`just testifying about some of the other additives that are disclosed
`in paragraph 82?
`MR. LUKEN: I think he addresses both. I think
`Dr. Dordick primarily in the earlier part of his declaration cites a
`number of prior art references that suggested even for the base
`polymer coating getting anywhere near 20 would have harmful
`side effects.
`JUDGE ANKENBRAND: On a UV absorber?
`MR. LUKEN: Yes, that it would be -- first of all, it's
`clear that it would not be helpful for the UV absorber to go
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`anywhere near 20. It is clear that the range that McDaniel talks
`about that would be useful is up to 5 and 5 alone. But
`Dr. Dordick cites literature and indicates that a POSITA would
`understand that even for the base polymer, concentrations at
`higher levels could be destructive, but one skilled in the art -- and
`now we are kin
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
