`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NANOCO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,803,423
`Case IPR2021-00184
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`EVERY CHALLENGED CLAIM IS UNPATENTABLE ............................. 2
`A. Ground 1: Banin Anticipates Claims 1-3, 10-11, 13, and 22-24 .......... 2
`1.
`Banin Discloses a MCC .............................................................. 2
`
`2.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Banin Discloses Conditions Permitting Seeding and
`Growth......................................................................................... 9
`Ground 2: Banin Renders Obvious Claims 1-6, 10-14, and 21-
`25 .........................................................................................................11
`Ground 3: Banin in View of Bawendi Renders Obvious Claims
`7-9 ........................................................................................................13
`D. Grounds 4-6: Zaban in View of Ptatschek, Plus Yu or Bawendi,
`Collectively Renders Obvious Claims 1, 4-6, 7-16, and 21-25 ..........15
`Ground 7: Lucey in View of Ahrenkiel Renders Obvious
`Claims 1, 4, 11-16, 21, and 25 ............................................................23
`PO’S BACKGROUND SECTIONS ARE IRRELEVANT ..........................25
`III.
`IV. NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................25
`V.
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................27
`
`
`
`C.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC,
`825 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 20, 22
`In re Applied Materials, Inc.,
`692 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 22
`B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C & D Zodiac, Inc.,
`709 F. App’x 687 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 26
`Bayer Pharma AG v. Watson Lab’ys, Inc.,
`874 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 24
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 11
`DynaEnergetics US, Inc. v. GEODynamics, Inc.,
`IPR2016-01850, Paper No. 27 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2018) ................................ 9, 20
`E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V.,
`904 F.3d 996 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 26
`Google Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC,
`CBM2014-00005, Paper No. 32 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2015) ................................. 2
`Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co.,
`667 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 10
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 18, 23
`Randall Mfg. v. Rea,
`733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 23
`Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc.,
`957 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .................................................................... 20, 22
`ZUP, LLC v. Nash Mfg., Inc.,
`896 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 25
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`Basis Sci., Inc. v. Body Media, Inc.,
`Reexamination Control No. 95/002,354, Decision on Appeal
`(P.T.A.B. Sept. 16, 2016) ................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,803,423 (“the ’423 patent”)
`Declaration of Mark A. Green in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,803,423
`Curriculum Vitae for Mark A. Green
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,803,423
`International Patent Publication No. WO 03/097904 to Banin et
`al. (“Banin”)
`A. Zaban, O. I. Mićić, B. A. Gregg, and A. J. Nozik,
`Photosensitization of Nanoporous TiO2 Electrodes with InP
`Quantum Dots, 14 LANGMUIR 3153 (1998) (“Zaban”)
`Olga I. Mićić et al., Synthesis and Characterization of InP
`Quantum Dots, 98 J. PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY 4966 (1994) (“Mićić”)
`V. Ptatschek et al., Quantized Aggregation Phenomena in II–VI-
`Semiconductor Colloids, 102 BERICHTE DER BUNSEN–
`GESELLSCHAFT FÜR PHYSIKALISCHE CHEMIE 85 (1998)
`(“Ptatschek”)
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`Heng Yu et al., Heterogeneous Seeded Growth: A Potentially
`General Synthesis of Monodisperse Metallic Nanoparticles, 123 J.
`AM. CHEMICAL SOC’Y 9198 (2001)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,193,098 to Lucey et al. (“Lucey”)
`S.P. Ahrenkiel et al., Synthesis and Characterization of Colloidal
`InP Quantum Rods, 3 NANO LETTERS 833 (2003) (“Ahrenkiel”)
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`U.S. Patent No. 6,576,291 to Bawendi et al. (“Bawendi”)
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`N. Herron et al., Crystal Structure and Optical Properties of
`Cd32S14(SC6H5)36·DMF4, a Cluster with a 15 Angstrom CdS Core,
`259 SCIENCE 1426 (1993)
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`1031
`1032
`1033
`1034
`1035
`
`1036
`1037
`
`Description
`Seven Networks, LLC v. Apple Inc., C.A. No. 2:19-cv-00115-JRG,
`Dkt. 313 (Sept. 22, 2020)
`Docket Control Order, Nanoco Technologies Ltd. v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:20-cv-00038 (E.D. Tex.)
`October 2021 Calendar for Judge Rodney Gilstrap, Eastern
`District of Texas
`Return of summons to Samsung Electronics Co. and Samsung
`Electronics America, Nanoco Technologies Ltd. v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:20-cv-00038 (E.D. Tex.)
`Letter dated November 9, 2020 from M. Pearson to M. Newman
`re stipulation about invalidity grounds
`Infringement contentions, Nanoco Technologies Ltd. v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:20-cv-00038 (E.D. Tex.)
`Cover material for Zaban
`Cover material for Mićić
`Cover material for Ptatschek
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`Cover material for Yu
`Cover material for Ahrenkiel
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`Declaration of Chris Lowden
`Declaration of David Smorodin
`Affidavit of Elizabeth Rosenberg
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`Catherine J. Murphy, Optical Sensing with Quantum Dots, 74
`ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 520A (2002)
`U.S. Patent App. No. 2003/0106488 to Huang et al.
`NANOPARTICLES: FROM THEORY TO APPLICATION (Günter Schmid
`ed., March 2004)
`
`v
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`1041
`
`1042
`1043
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`Description
`Victor I. Klimov, Nanocrystal Quantum Dots, 28 LOS ALAMOS
`SCI. 214 (2003)
`David J. Norris, Electronic Structure in Semiconductor
`Nanocrystals, in SEMICONDUCTOR AND METAL NANOCRYSTALS 65
`(Victor I. Klimov ed., 2003)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0036130 to Lee et al. (“Lee”)
`Andy Watson et al., Lighting Up Cells with Quantum Dots, 34
`BIOTECHNIQUES 296 (2003)
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`Victor K. LaMer et al., Theory, Production and Mechanism of
`Formation of Monodispersed Hydrosols, 72 J. AM. CHEMICAL
`SOC’Y 4847 (1950)
`Scott L. Cumberland et al., Inorganic Clusters as Single-Source
`Precursors for Preparation of CdSe, ZnSe, and CdSe/ZnS
`Nanomaterials, 14 CHEMISTRY OF MATERIALS 1576 (2002)
`C. B. Murray et al., Synthesis and Characterization of Nearly
`Monodisperse CdE (E = S, Se, Te) Semiconductor
`Nanocrystallites, 115 J. AM. CHEMICAL SOC’Y 8706 (1993)
`David Battaglia et al., Formation of High Quality InP and InAs
`Nanocrystals in a Noncoordinating Solvent, 2 NANO LETTERS
`1027 (2002)
`Tobias Hanrath et al., Nucleation and Growth of Germanium
`Nanowires Seeded by Organic Monolayer-Coated Gold
`Nanocrystals, 124 J. AM. CHEMICAL SOC’Y 1424 (2002)
`Jennifer A. Hollingsworth et al., “Soft” Chemical Synthesis and
`Manipulation of Semiconductor Nanocrystals, in
`SEMICONDUCTOR AND METAL NANOCRYSTALS 1 (Victor I. Klimov
`ed., 2003)
`Nigel L. Pickett et al., Syntheses of Semiconductor Nanoparticles
`Using Single-Molecular Precursors, 1 CHEMICAL REC. 467 (2001)
`S.B. Qadri et al., Size-Induced Transition-Temperature Reduction
`in Nanoparticles of ZnS, 60 PHYSICAL REV. B 9191 (1999)
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1052
`
`1053
`1054
`1055
`1056
`1057
`1058
`1059
`1060
`
`1061
`1062
`1063
`
`1064
`1065
`1066
`
`1067
`
`1068
`
`Description
`T.M. Hayes et al., Growth and Dissolution of CdS Nanoparticles
`in Glass, 13 J. PHYSICS: CONDENSED MATTER 425 (2001)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,056,471 to Han et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,588,828
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`Arthur J. Nozik, et al., III-V Quantum Dots and Quantum Dot
`Arrays: Synthesis, Optical Properties, Photogenerated Carrier
`Dynamics, and Applications to Photon Conversion, in
`SEMICONDUCTOR AND METAL NANOCRYSTALS 327 (Victor I.
`Klimov ed., 2003)
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`Supporting Material of Heng Yu et al., Heterogeneous Seeded
`Growth: A Potentially General Synthesis of Monodisperse
`Metallic Nanoparticles, 123 J. AM. CHEMICAL SOC’Y 9198 (2001)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,864,626 to Weiss et al. (“Weiss”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,712 to Zehnder et al. (“Zehnder ’712”)
`M. A. Olshavsky, Organometallic Synthesis of GaAs Crystallites
`Exhibiting Quantum Confinement, 112 J. AM. CHEM. SOC. 9438
`(1990)
`A. R. Kortan et al, Nucleation and Growth of CdSe on ZnS
`Quantum Crystallite Seeds, and Vice Versa, in Inverse Micelle
`Media, 112 J. AM. CHEM. SOC. 1327 (1990)
`Holger Borchert et al., Investigation of ZnS Passivated InP
`Nanocrystals by XPS, 2 NANO LETTERS 151 (2002)
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1069
`
`1070
`
`1071
`
`1072
`
`1073
`1074
`
`1075
`
`1076
`1077
`1078
`
`1079
`
`1080
`1081
`
`1082
`
`1083
`
`Description
`Gregory A. Khitrov, Synthesis, Characterization and Formation
`Mechanisms of Inorganic Nanomaterials, University of California
`Santa Barbara (1993)
`Frederic V. Mikulec, Organometallic Synthesis and Spectroscopic
`Characterization of Manganese-Doped CdSe Nanocrystals, 122 J.
`AM. CHEM. SOC. 2532 (2000)
`Stephan Haubold, Strongly Luminescent InP/ZnS Core-Shell
`Nanoparticles, 2 CHEMPHYSCHEM 331 (2001)
`Huheey et al., INORGANIC CHEMISTRY: PRINCIPLES OF STRUCTURE
`AND REACTIVITY (4th ed. 1993)
`Linus Pauling, GENERAL CHEMISTRY (3d ed. revised 1988)
`Richard L. Wells et al., Tris(trimethylsilyl)arsine and Lithium
`Bis(trimethylsilyl)arsenide, 31 INORGANIC SYNTHESES 150 (Alan
`H. Cowley ed., 1997)
`J.R. De Laeter et al., Atomic Weights of the Elements: Review
`2000, 75 PURE & APPLIED CHEMISTRY 683 (2003)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,649,138 to Adams et al. (“Adams ’138”)
`European Patent App. No. 84303605.4 (“Hashimoto”)
`M. W. G. De Bolster, Glossary of Terms Used in Bioinorganic
`Chemistry, 69 PURE & APPLIED CHEMISTRY 1251 (1997)
`YunWei Cao et al., Growth and Properties of Semiconductor
`Core/Shell Nanocrystals with InAs Cores, 122 J. AM. CHEM. SOC.
`9692 (2000)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,033,977 to Hainfeld et al. (“Hainfeld”)
`Charles L. Cleveland, Structural Evolution of Smaller Gold
`Nanocrystals: The Truncated Decahedral Motif, 79 PHYSICAL
`REV. LETTERS 1873 (1997)
`Shinichiro Hakomori, The Electrode Potential of Indium Against
`Indium Chloride Solutions, 52 J. AM. CHEM. SOC. 2372 (1930)
`Von G. Becker et al., Synthese und Eigenschaften von
`Trimethylsilylarsanen, 462 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR ANORGANISCHE UND
`ALLGEMEINE CHEMIE 113 (1980)
`
`viii
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1084
`
`1085
`
`1086
`
`1087
`
`1088
`
`1089
`1090
`1091
`
`1092
`
`1093
`
`1094
`
`1095
`
`1096
`
`Description
`B. O. Dabbousi et al., (CdSe)ZnS Core-Shell Quantum Dots:
`Synthesis and Characterization of a Size Series of Highly
`Luminescent Nanocrystallites, 101 J. PHYS. CHEM. B 9463 (1997)
`Nathalie Audebrand et al., The Layer Crystal Structure of
`[In2(C2O4)3(H2O)3]·7H2O and Microstructure of Nanocrystalline
`In2O3 Obtained from Thermal Decomposition, 5 SOLID ST. SCI.
`783 (2003)
`G. W. Parshall, Synthesis of Alkylsilylphosphines, 81 J. AM.
`CHEM. SOC. 6273 (1959)
`Michael L. Steigerwald et al., Semiconductor Crystallites: A
`Class of Large Molecules, 23 ACCTS. OF CHEMICAL RES. 183
`(1990)
`Richard L. Wells, Synthesis of Nanocrystalline Indium Arsenide
`and Indium Phosphide from Indium(III) Halides and
`Tris(trimethylsilyl)pnicogens; Synthesis, Characterization, and
`Decomposition Behavior of I3In·P(SiMe3)3, Office of Naval
`Research, United States Government (1995)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,699,647 to Lynch (“Lynch”)
`March 2, 2021 Letter M. Pearson to M. Newman
`May 11, 2021 Claim Construction Order from Nanoco
`Technologies Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:20-cv-
`00038 (E.D. Tex.)
`Declaration of Jeremy Wilson in Support of Petitioners’
`Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Second Declaration of Mark A. Green Concerning U.S. Patent
`No. 7,803,423
`Excerpt from WEBSTER’S NEW UNIVERSAL UNABRIDGED
`DICTIONARY (2003)
`Excerpt from THE NEW OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY
`(Elizabeth J. Jewell & Frank Abate, eds. 2001)
`J. Leeb et al., Colloidal Synthesis and Electroluminescence
`Properties of Nanoporous MnIIZnS Films, 103 J. PHYSICAL
`CHEMISTRY B 7839 (1999)
`
`ix
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1097
`
`1098
`1099
`
`Description
`Excerpt from RONALD W. MISSEN ET AL., INTRODUCTION TO
`CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING AND KINETICS (1999)
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`October 28, 2021 Deposition Transcript of Brandi Cossairt, Ph.D.
`
`
`x
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner (“PO”) does not dispute that the prior art discloses nearly every
`
`limitation of the Challenged Claims. Instead, PO primarily argues that Banin
`
`allegedly does not disclose a molecular cluster compound (“MCC”), and argues
`
`against the clear motivation to combine references. But PO’s arguments ignore
`
`express disclosures in the prior art, wrongly try to read in disclosures from non-
`
`asserted references, and attempt to limit the motivation-to-combine analyses in
`
`violation of Federal Circuit law. As explained below, each of PO’s arguments is
`
`incorrect, and the Challenged Claims are unpatentable.1
`
`
`1 The parties agree with the Board’s conclusion that claim construction, including
`
`of the phrase “molecular cluster compound,” is unnecessary to resolve this IPR.
`
`Pet. 19-20; POR 26-29; InstDec. 18. While Petitioner maintains that the claimed
`
`“molecular cluster compound” is indefinite (Pet. 19), the Challenged Claims are
`
`unpatentable under any possible construction. Further, the level of ordinary skill
`
`does not affect the unpatentability of the Challenged Claims. Ex. 1093 ¶¶10-11.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`II. EVERY CHALLENGED CLAIM IS UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground 1: Banin Anticipates Claims 1-3, 10-11, 13, and 22-24
`PO disputes only: (1) whether Banin discloses a MCC; and (2) whether Banin
`
`discloses conditions permitting seeding and growth.2 POR 29-44. Because
`
`Petitioner has shown Banin discloses both of those elements, the Challenged Claims
`
`of Ground 1 are unpatentable. Pet. 20-28; Ex. 1002 ¶¶35-50.
`
`Banin Discloses a MCC
`1.
`PO argues that Banin, despite reciting only a single, specific molecular
`
`formula for its gold clusters (i.e., Au101(PPh3)21Cl5) for use in the reaction identified
`
`by Petitioner, does not disclose a MCC. POR 29-41; Ex. 1005, 20:13-16. PO’s
`
`arguments are an improper attempt to change Banin’s disclosure, and are incorrect.
`
`First, PO points to the Hutchison reference cited in Banin to argue that
`
`Banin’s gold clusters are not MCCs because they are not identical to one another.
`
`See POR 32-35. This is incorrect. Regardless of whether Hutchison’s gold particles
`
`
`2 PO’s expert’s opinions should be given no weight because they are based on
`
`erroneous legal standards. See Ex. 1099, 42:19-44:1 (providing incorrect
`
`definitions of anticipation and obviousness); see Google Inc. v. Unwired Planet,
`
`LLC, CBM2014-00005, Paper No. 32 at 23 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2015)
`
`(discounting expert testimony that “depends upon the wrong legal standard”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`are MCCs, a POSITA would recognize that Banin identifies only one specific
`
`cluster—having a single molecular formula (i.e., Au101(PPh3)21Cl5) and size (1.4nm)
`
`with more than three metal atoms—which a POSITA would recognize as a MCC.
`
`Ex. 1005, 20:13-16; Ex. 1002 ¶90; Ex. 1093 ¶17. Indeed, while PO attempts to point
`
`to the transmission electron microscopy (“TEM”) image from Hutchison (see POR
`
`33 (citing Ex. 2017, Fig. 1(a)), PO ignores that Banin provides its own TEM image
`
`that shows that Banin’s “Au101 clusters” do not have the size distribution that the
`
`clusters in Hutchison do. Compare Ex. 1005, 11:15, Fig. 10a, with Ex. 2017, Fig.
`
`1(a).
`
`
`
`As Petitioner’s expert Dr. Green explains, Banin’s TEM is consistent with
`
`uniform Au101(PPh3)21Cl5 MCCs, while those shown in Hutchison are consistent
`
`with a size distribution of clusters. Ex. 1093 ¶¶18-21. Dr. Green explains that a
`
`POSITA would recognize from these images that Banin’s MCCs represent purified,
`
`size selected MCCs, even if they were made starting with Hutchison’s method. See
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`id. ¶18. This is common and expected in the field—an initial paper describing a
`
`synthesis of a molecule will often have byproducts, and subsequent papers using that
`
`molecule will use a purified form. See id. ¶21.
`
`Banin’s other disclosures confirm that its Au101(PPh3)21Cl5 clusters are
`
`identical to one another. Id. ¶22. For example, with respect to the TEM image,
`
`Banin discloses that the MCCs are depicted “without further size selection,” which
`
`means size selection was previously employed to achieve a particular size particle.3
`
`Ex. 1005, 22:26-28 (emphasis added); Ex. 1093 ¶22. A POSITA thus would have
`
`understood that, by disclosing “triphenylphosphine coated Au clusters with diameter
`
`of 1.4 nm and the suggested formula Au101(PPh3)21Cl5,” Banin teaches using a MCC
`
`
`3 Size-selection techniques were known at the time of the alleged invention,
`
`including Banin’s centrifugation technique. Ex. 1005, 7:4-5, 20:24-25, 21:29-
`
`22:2; see also Ex. 1045, 1579 (discussing size-selective precipitation); Ex. 1037,
`
`83 (same); id., 57-58 (applying size-selective precipitation to cluster solution);
`
`Ex. 1093 ¶22.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`that has the specific molecular formula of Au101(PPh3)21Cl5, and not some size
`
`distribution as PO argues.4 Ex. 1005, 20:13-16; Ex. 1093 ¶22.
`
`Second, PO argues that Banin’s Au101(PPh3)21Cl5 clusters are not MCCs
`
`because the gold seeds in Hutchison “contain significant impurities.” POR 35. But
`
`these alleged “impurities” are simply smaller seeds within Hutchison’s size
`
`distribution (e.g. 3.7% of Hutchison’s gold particles were AuCl(PPh3), a smaller
`
`seed). See Ex. 2017, 12890-91. But a POSITA would have understood that Banin—
`
`the reference Petitioner actually relies upon—has uniform MCCs, not gold clusters
`
`of varying sizes. Ex. 1093 ¶23.
`
`Third, PO wrongly contends Banin provides evidence
`
`that
`
`its
`
`Au101(PPh3)21Cl5 clusters are not “sufficiently well-defined” because Banin reports
`
`that they are used to make InAs nanorods that “vary [in size] by up to 25%.” POR
`
`35-36. There is no evidence that the size distribution in the width of nanorods is due
`
`to an alleged size distribution of Banin’s clusters. To the contrary—while PO
`
`attempts to correlate the 25% width in the size distribution of Banin’s gold nanorods
`
`with the 25% size distribution of Hutchison’s gold particles—PO ignores that there
`
`
`4 While Banin states Au101(PPh3)21Cl5 is a “suggested formula,” it is also the only
`
`formula Banin discloses for the specific reaction, which Banin notes were
`
`narrowly size selected. Ex. 1005, 20:13-16.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`is no such size distribution shown in Banin’s MCCs as depicted in Banin Fig. 10A.
`
`See Ex. 1093 ¶24; Ex. 1005, Fig. 10A. Moreover, Banin discloses that there could
`
`be a number of reasons for a size distribution of nanorods that are unrelated to the
`
`size of the Au101 cluster, including without limitation “the type of the metal catalyst,
`
`the reaction temperature, duration of the reaction and concentration of precursors.”
`
`Ex. 1005, 7:9-12. Indeed, PO’s expert agrees that factors other than the size of the
`
`MCCs—including the “surface chemistry” of the nanoparticles, “the processing
`
`conditions,” and handling techniques—were known to cause nanoparticle size
`
`distributions. Ex. 1099, 64:6-65:9. Therefore, with the clear disclosures of Banin,
`
`including Fig. 10A showing that there is no size distribution of MCCs, a POSITA
`
`would not understand that the size distribution of nanorod diameters was due to an
`
`alleged size distribution of gold clusters. Ex. 1093 ¶24.
`
`Fourth, PO argues Banin’s Au101(PPh3)21Cl5 clusters are not MCCs because
`
`“none of Hutchison, Banin or Yu are able to actually chemically characterize the
`
`gold clusters produced by the Hutchison process.” POR 34. This is irrelevant. A
`
`POSITA would not require chemical characterization data to determine that Banin’s
`
`Au101(PPh3)21Cl5 clusters are well-defined chemical structures all possessing the
`
`same relative molecular formula. Ex. 1093 ¶25. For example, PO’s expert admits
`
`that x-ray crystallography data is not required to identify a MCC. Ex. 1099, 128:7-
`
`129:3. Banin discloses clusters with a single molecular formula (Au101(PPh3)21Cl5)
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`and size (1.4nm), which is sufficient to inform a POSITA that those clusters are
`
`MCCs. Ex. 1093 ¶25; Ex. 1005, 20:13-16. Indeed, just like Banin’s disclosure of a
`
`single formula for its gold MCC, the ’423 patent relies exclusively on singular
`
`formulae (without any chemical characterization data) as the sole basis for
`
`identifying its MCCs. Ex. 1001, 11:56-12:38; Ex. 1099, 35:10-14, 37:17-38:2 (PO’s
`
`expert admits the patent provides no characterization data for its MCCs).
`
`Fifth, PO argues that Banin’s Au101(PPh3)21Cl5 clusters are not MCCs because
`
`they “melt” during the seeded growth reaction. POR 31-32. But the ’423 patent
`
`does not limit the claimed MCC to a particular phase of matter. A POSITA would
`
`have understood that a phase change does not alter the molecular formula of those
`
`gold seeds, which establishes their well-defined chemical structure (either by
`
`molecular formula or mass). Ex. 1093 ¶26; Ex. 2031, 111:10-13 (confirming a
`
`molecule does not change its chemical structure when it melts); Ex. 1099, 126:12-
`
`18 (PO’s expert admits that generally “a chemical will have the same molecular
`
`formula whether it’s in solid form or liquid form”).
`
`Sixth, PO also contends that Banin’s Au101(PPh3)21Cl5 clusters cannot be
`
`MCCs because they “are actually agglomerations of … gold particles” and thus have
`
`no precise size or formula. POR 37, 43-44. But PO ignores that “agglomeration” is
`
`a physical rather than chemical act, and therefore each portion of that
`
`“agglomeration” is still a well-defined Au101(PPh3)21Cl5 molecule that meets the
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Board’s construction of MCC. Ex. 1093 ¶27. Indeed, Banin does not state (and a
`
`POSITA would not have understood Banin to suggest) that its MCCs undergo any
`
`chemical change when they aggregate. See id. ¶27; Ex. 1005, 23:23-24:2. A
`
`POSITA thus would have understood that each of Banin’s Au101(PPh3)21Cl5 clusters
`
`remain identical even if they physically aggregate (e.g., akin to marbles).5 Ex. 1093
`
`¶27.
`
`Seventh, PO purports to rely on the testimony of Petitioner’s experts in this
`
`and the district court proceedings (Dr. Green and Dr. Bawendi) to argue that a
`
`POSITA would have understood that compounds that are not identical in molecular
`
`formula and mass are not MCCs. POR 36-41. This argument is inapposite and
`
`unsupported. Banin’s MCCs have the same molecular formula and mass and are
`
`therefore MCCs, and neither Dr. Bawendi nor Dr. Green testified to the contrary.6
`
`
`5 The claims are agnostic to whether a single MCC or group of MCCs seed growth.
`
`6 For that reason, PO misrepresents the record when it states “Petitioner’s own
`
`experts” said “the gold particles made by Hutchison process and used in Banin
`
`and Yu are not MCCs.” POR 41.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Dr. Bawendi never addressed Banin’s MCCs,7 and Dr. Green concluded Banin
`
`discloses Au-based MCCs having a single molecular formula.8 Ex. 1002 ¶90; Ex.
`
`1093 ¶28.
`
`Banin Discloses Conditions Permitting Seeding and Growth
`2.
`PO argues that Banin “teaches away from seeding” because it suggests
`
`lowering the concentration of gold seeds to prevent their aggregation. POR 42-44.
`
`
`7 Dr. Bawendi addressed “small [InP] cluster mixtures” unrelated to Banin’s
`
`MCCs. Ex. 2033, 13470; Ex. 1093 ¶28.
`
`8 Dr. Cossairt improperly relied on a number of other references that are inapposite.
`
`See Ex. 2030 ¶¶113-19 (citing Exs. 2035, 2038, 2039, 2040, 2041, 2042).
`
`Whether Hutchison or any other reference discloses gold clusters with a size
`
`distribution is irrelevant because Banin discloses uniform Au101(PPh3)21Cl5
`
`MCCs. Ex. 1093 ¶¶17-23. Moreover, all but one (Ex. 2038) of these papers
`
`published after the alleged invention and are therefore entitled to no weight. See,
`
`e.g., DynaEnergetics US, Inc. v. GEODynamics, Inc., IPR2016-01850, Paper No.
`
`27, at 37 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2018).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`That is incorrect.9 Banin states that “[t]he main idea of the present invention is based
`
`on introducing nanoparticles of a metal catalyst that serve as starting nanocrystals
`
`from which nanorods of inorganic semiconductors grow in solution,” which means
`
`its Au101(PPh3)21Cl5 clusters are seeds for nanoparticle growth. Ex. 1005, 6:3-6
`
`(emphasis added); Ex. 1002 ¶89. That is shown in Banin’s Figure 1 as edited below.
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1, 13:9-16; Ex. 1002 ¶91; Ex. 1093 ¶34. Moreover, it was known in
`
`the art including from the Yu reference that “Au101(PPh3)21Cl5 clusters” act as
`
`
`
`
`9 Teaching away is irrelevant to an anticipation analysis. Krippelz v. Ford Motor
`
`Co., 667 F.3d 1261, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`“nucleants or seeds” for nanoparticle growth. Ex. 1010, 9198; Ex. 1002 ¶¶54-55,
`
`83, 89-92; Ex. 1093 ¶34.
`
`B. Ground 2: Banin Renders Obvious Claims 1-6, 10-14, and 21-25
`PO offers no new challenges to the obviousness of claims 1-3, 10-14, and 21-
`
`25.10 POR 44. Indeed, even if Banin did not disclose a MCC (which it does), it is
`
`indisputable that Banin renders a MCC obvious. See, e.g., Basis Sci., Inc. v. Body
`
`Media, Inc., Reexamination Control No. 95/002,354, Decision on Appeal, at 19-20
`
`(P.T.A.B. Sept. 16, 2016) (rejecting argument that a reference failed “to disclose
`
`specific derived data from the specifically-identified sensors” because “[a] reference
`
`may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested” and the
`
`reference’s general disclosure was enough to render the claimed invention obvious);
`
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2015). PO never
`
`argued to the contrary. Rather, its own expert admits that the benefit of using
`
`identical MCCs was known. Ex. 1099, 49:20-50:13.
`
`With respect to Ground 2, PO only disputes whether claims 4-6 are rendered
`
`obvious by Banin. As for claim 4, which requires “a temperature of the solution” to
`
`increase, PO argues that Banin does not teach “increas[ing] the temperature of the
`
`
`10 PO has therefore waived any arguments specific to the limitations in claims 12,
`
`14, 21, and 25. See SchedOrder 11.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`solution to a second, higher temperature” because it only describes cooling “a hot
`
`solution containing the precursors and gold catalyst” after injection into the growth
`
`solution at 360°C. POR 45. But PO’s argument is wrong as it focuses on a different
`
`solution (the “growth solution”) than relied on by Petitioner. Id. Petitioner
`
`explained that Banin’s “stock solution” is the claimed “solution,” which does
`
`increase in temperature. Pet. 29. The stock solution is at a first (not explicitly
`
`disclosed) temperature before it is injected into a separate hot “growth solution” that
`
`is at a different temperature of 360°C. Ex. 1005, 20:16-20; Pet. 29. After the stock
`
`solution is injected into the growth solution, the growth solution decreases in
`
`temperature from 360°C to 300°C, which necessarily means that the stock solution
`
`was at a temperature below 300°C and then increased to 300°C after injection. Id.,
`
`20:16-22; Ex. 1093 ¶¶36-37; see Ex. 1099, 71:18-72:7. Banin thus renders obvious
`
`claim 4. Ex. 1002 ¶¶117-22.
`
`PO also argues that Banin does not render obvious claims 5 and 6, which recite
`
`a first temperature of 50°C–100°C and a second temperature of 120°C–280°C
`
`respectively, because Banin states that “syntheses at a lower reaction temperature of
`
`300°C, does not yield one-dimensional growth.” POR 45-46 (quoting Ex. 1005,
`
`19:9-12) (emphasis added). This is incorrect. First, this disclosure relates to a
`
`different embodiment of Banin than that relied on by Petitioner. In that other
`
`embodiment involving nanowires rather than nanorods, Banin states that “a lower
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`reaction temperature of 300°C[] does not yield one-dimensional growth in this
`
`specific case.” Ex. 1005, 18:1-10, 19:6-12 (emphasis added). By contrast, for the
`
`reaction involving nanorods on which Petitioner relies, Banin discloses that the
`
`“reaction temperature” is “about 300°C,” which a POSITA would understand
`
`renders obvious the claimed second temperature of 280°C. Ex. 1005, 20:20-22;
`
`Ex. 1093 ¶38; Pet. 31; Ex. 1002 ¶127. Even in the embodiment that PO points to,
`
`Banin does not state the reaction will not work to produce nanoparticles at
`
`temperatures below 300°C, only that a certain unclaimed shape may not result (e.g.,
`
`nanowires vs nanorods). Ex. 1093 ¶38. Therefore, even this separate embodiment
`
`still renders claim 6 obvious. Id.; Pet. 31. With respect to claim 5, which requires
`
`that “the first temperature is selected from a range of 50°C to 100°C,” this first
`
`temperature is not a reaction temperature. Ex. 1005, cl. 1; Ex. 1093 ¶38; Pet. 30-31.
`
`Therefore, PO’s argument about the reaction temperature in this separate
`
`embodiment of Banin (while incorrect for the reasons stated above) is irrelevant to
`
`claim 5. Banin thus also renders claims 5-6 obvious. Ex. 1002 ¶¶123-27; Pet. 30-
`
`31.
`
`C. Ground 3: Banin in View of Bawendi Renders Obvious Claims 7-9
`It is undisputed that Bawendi discloses the additional elements of claims 7-9,
`
`which are directed to a method of “monitoring an average size of the nanoparticles
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`being grown.” Ex. 1001, claims 7-9. PO’s only argument is that a POSITA would
`
`not have been motivated to combine Banin and Bawendi. That argument lacks merit.
`
`First, PO incorrectly contends there would have been no reason to combine
`
`the references because Bawendi measures the “average diameter” of its growing
`
`spherical nanoparticles while “the diameters of
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
