`
`
`
`
`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. 8,524,365
`Case IPR2021-00186
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`EVERY CHALLENGED CLAIM IS UNPATENTABLE ............................. 1
`A. Ground 1: Banin Anticipates Claims 1, 7-12, 17, 22, and 23 ............... 1
`1.
`Banin Discloses a MCC .............................................................. 2
`
`2.
`
`Yu Further Demonstrates Why Banin Renders the
`Challenged Claims of Ground 1 Unpatentable ........................... 9
`
`I.
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`Banin Discloses Conditions Permitting Seeding and
`Growth......................................................................................... 9
`Ground 2: Banin Renders Obvious Claims 1, 7-12, 15-17, and
`22-23 ....................................................................................................11
`Ground 3: Banin in View of Herron Renders Obvious Claims 2-
`6 and 18-21 ..........................................................................................11
`D. Ground 4: Banin in View of Treadway Renders Obvious
`Claims 13 and 14 .................................................................................16
`Ground 5: Zaban in View of Farneth and Yu Renders Obvious
`Claims 1-9 and 17-23 ..........................................................................17
`Grounds 6-7: Lucey in View of Ahrenkiel, Plus Treadway for
`Certain Claims, Renders Obvious Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-18, and 22-
`23 .........................................................................................................24
`PO’S BACKGROUND SECTIONS ARE IRRELEVANT ..........................26
`III.
`IV. NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................26
`V.
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................27
`
`
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC,
`825 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 21, 22
`In re Applied Materials, Inc.,
`692 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 22
`Bayer Pharma AG v. Watson Lab’ys, Inc.,
`874 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 25
`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) ................................ 8, 20
`E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V.,
`904 F.3d 996 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 27
`Google Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC,
`CBM2014-00005, Paper No. 32 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2015) ................................. 2
`Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc.,
`764 F. App’x 873 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..................................................................... 13
`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) ............................................................................................ 19
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 12, 15
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 16
`Randall Mfg. v. Rea,
`733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 23
`
`ii
`
`
`
`In re Sneed,
`710 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......................................................................... 13
`Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc.,
`957 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .............................................................. 13, 21, 22
`ZUP, LLC v. Nash Mfg., Inc.,
`896 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 26
`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. 8,524,365 (“the ’365 patent”)
`Declaration of Mark A. Green in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,524,365
`Curriculum Vitae for Mark A. Green
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,524,365
`International Patent Publication No. WO 03/097904 to Banin et
`al. (“Banin”)
`A. Zaban et al., 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”)
`W. E. Farneth et al., Bulk Semiconductors from Molecular Solids:
`A Mechanistic Investigation, 4 CHEMISTRY OF MATERIALS 916
`(1992) (“Farneth”)
`Heng Yu et al., Heterogeneous Seeded Growth: A Potentially
`General Synthesis of Monodisperse Metallic Nanoparticles, 123 J.
`AM. CHEMICAL SOC’Y 9198 (2001) (“Yu”)
`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
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`U.S. Patent No. 6,815,064 to Treadway et al. (“Treadway”)
`N. Herron et al., Crystal Structure and Optical Properties of
`Cd32S14(SC6H5)36·DMF4, a Cluster with a 15 Angstrom CdS
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`1031
`1032
`1033
`1034
`1035
`
`1036
`
`Description
`Core, 259 SCIENCE 1426 (1993) (“Herron”)
`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
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`Cover material for Farneth
`Cover material for Yu
`Cover material for Ahrenkiel
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`Cover material for Herron
`Declaration of Chris Lowden
`Declaration of David Smorodin
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`Declaration of Rachel Watters
`Catherine J. Murphy, Optical Sensing with Quantum Dots, 74
`ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 520A (2002)
`U.S. Patent App. No. 2003/0106488 to Huang et al.
`
`v
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`1041
`
`1042
`1043
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`Description
`NANOPARTICLES: FROM THEORY TO APPLICATION (Günter Schmid
`ed., March 2004)
`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)
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1051
`1052
`1053
`1054
`1055
`1056
`
`1057
`
`1058
`
`1059
`
`1060
`
`1061
`
`1062
`1063
`1064
`1065
`1066
`
`Description
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`U.S. Patent No. 7,056,471 to Han et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,588,828
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`Olga I. Mićić et al., Core–Shell Quantum Dots of Lattice-Matched
`ZnCdSe2 Shells on InP Cores: Experiment and Theory, 104 J. OF
`PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B 12149 (2000)
`Michael L. Steigerwald, Clusters as Small Solids, 13
`POLYHEDRON 1245 (1994)
`M.L. Steigerwald et al., Application of Phosphine Tellurides to
`the Preparation of Group II-VI (2-16) Semiconductor Materials, 7
`ORGANOMETALLICS 245 (1988)
`Uri Banin et al., Tunneling and Optical Spectroscopy of
`Semiconductor Nanocrystal Quantum Dots: Single-Particle and
`Ensemble Properties, in SEMICONDUCTOR AND METAL
`NANOCRYSTALS 327 (Victor I. Klimov ed., 2003)
`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)
`Yong Han et al., Synthesis and Characterization of Zinc
`Sulfide/Gallium Phosphide Nanocomposite Powders, 77 J. AM.
`CERAMICS SOC’Y 3153 (1994)
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`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)
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1067
`
`1068
`
`1069
`
`1070
`
`1071
`
`1072
`
`1073
`1074
`
`1075-1089
`1090
`1091
`
`1092
`
`1093
`
`1094
`1095
`1096
`
`Description
`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)
`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)
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`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 Admission of Jeremy
`Wilson
`Second Declaration of Mark A. Green Concerning U.S. Patent
`No. 8,524,365
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`J. Leeb et al., Colloidal Synthesis and Electroluminescence
`Properties of Nanoporous MnIIZnS Films, 103 J. PHYSICAL
`CHEMISTRY B 7839 (1999)
`
`viii
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1097
`
`1098
`
`1099
`
`Description
`Excerpt from RONALD W. MISSEN ET AL., INTRODUCTION TO
`CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING AND KINETICS (1999)
`Zheng Wei Pan et al., Germanium-Catalyzed Growth of Zinc
`Oxide Nanowires: A Semiconductor Catalyst for Nanowire
`Synthesis, 44 ANGEWANDTE CHEMIE INT’L ED. 274 (2005)
`October 28, 2021 Deposition Transcript of Brandi Cossairt, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00186: 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. As explained below, each of
`
`PO’s arguments is incorrect as either contrary to law, the facts, or both, and the
`
`Challenged Claims are unpatentable.1
`
`II. EVERY CHALLENGED CLAIM IS UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground 1: Banin Anticipates Claims 1, 7-12, 17, 22, and 23
`PO disputes only: (1) whether Banin discloses a MCC; and (2) whether Banin
`
`discloses conditions permitting seeding and growth.2 POR 25-42. Because
`
`
`1 The parties agree with the Board’s conclusion that claim construction is
`
`unnecessary to resolve this IPR. Pet. 21; POR 23-25; InstDec. 16. While
`
`Petitioner maintains that “molecular cluster compound” is indefinite (Pet. 21),
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00186: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Petitioner has shown Banin discloses both of those elements, the Challenged Claims
`
`of Ground 1 are unpatentable. Pet. 22-31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶88-117.
`
`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 25-37; Ex. 1005, 20:13-16. That
`
`argument is an improper attempt to change Banin’s disclosure, and is 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.
`
`POR 25-32. This is incorrect. Regardless of whether Hutchison’s gold particles 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—is 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 28 (citing Ex. 2017, Fig.
`
`1(a)), PO ignores that Banin provides its own TEM image that shows that Banin’s
`
`
`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).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00186: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`“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. 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 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
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00186: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`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
`
`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 Hutchison’s gold seeds “contain significant impurities.” POR 31. 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
`
`
`3 Size-selection techniques were known before 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; Ex. 1037, 83; id., 57-58; Ex. 1093 ¶22.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00186: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`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
`
`its InAs nanorods “vary [in size] by up to 25%.” POR 31-32. There is no evidence
`
`that distributed nanorod size 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 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 (and PO’s expert admits) 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; see Ex. 1099, 64:6-65:9 (PO’s expert admitting “surface chemistry,” “the
`
`processing conditions,” and handling techniques were known to cause nanoparticle
`
`size distributions). Therefore, 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.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00186: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`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 30-31. 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) and size (1.4nm), which is sufficient to inform a POSITA that
`
`those structures are MCCs. Id. ¶25; Ex. 1005, 20:13-16. Indeed, just like Banin’s
`
`disclosure of a single formula for its gold MCC, the ’365 patent relies exclusively
`
`on singular formulae (without any chemical characterization data) as the sole basis
`
`for identifying its MCCs. Ex. 1001, 12:1-39; 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 26-27. But the ’365 patent
`
`does not limit the claimed MCC to a particular phase of matter and 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
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00186: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`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 33, 40-42. 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
`
`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 32-37. This argument is inapposite and
`
`
`5 The claims are agnostic to whether a single MCC or group of MCCs seed growth.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00186: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`
`6 PO’s contrary argument misrepresents the record. See POR 37.
`
`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 ¶¶115-20 (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).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00186: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`2.
`
`Yu Further Demonstrates Why Banin Renders the
`Challenged Claims of Ground 1 Unpatentable
`The Board agreed that Yu uses Hutchison’s gold clusters to seed growth.
`
`InstDec. 21. PO does not dispute that Yu teaches the benefits of seeded growth, or
`
`that Hutchison’s clusters can be used for seeded growth. Instead, PO asks the Board
`
`to disregard Yu as background knowledge to a POSITA because its disclosures may
`
`differ in certain respects to Banin. POR 37-40. This is incorrect. For example,
`
`while Yu discloses making metal nanoparticles rather than semiconductor
`
`nanoparticles, this is irrelevant because Banin discloses MCCs and semiconductor
`
`nanoparticles. Ex. 1005, Fig. 1, 20:12-27. Moreover, PO’s own expert admits that
`
`Banin’s synthesis method could be used to make both metallic and semiconductor
`
`nanoparticles. Ex. 1099, 58:4-20. Yu is a background reference that informs how a
`
`POSITA would have understood Banin’s invalidating disclosure, including how
`
`clusters can be used to seed growth. InstDec. 21-22; Ex. 1002 ¶¶54-55, 128, 130.
`
`Similarly, while PO argues that Yu uses a different temperature than Banin does,
`
`this is irrelevant because the claims are agnostic to temperature, and Yu shows that
`
`Banin invalidates the Challenged Claims of Ground 1 regardless of the temperature
`
`used. Ex. 1093 ¶¶34-35; Ex. 1005, Fig. 1, 20:12-27.
`
`Banin Discloses Conditions Permitting Seeding and Growth
`3.
`PO argues that Banin “teaches away from seeding” because it suggests
`
`lowering the concentration of gold seeds to prevent their aggregation. POR 40-42.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00186: 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 ¶110. That is shown in Banin’s Figure 1 as edited
`
`below.
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1, 13:9-16; Ex. 1002 ¶112; Ex. 1093 ¶36. 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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00186: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`“nucleants or seeds” for nanoparticle growth in solution. Ex. 1010, 9198; Ex. 1002
`
`¶¶54-55, 83, 110-13; Ex. 1093 ¶36.
`
`B. Ground 2: Banin Renders Obvious Claims 1, 7-12, 15-17, and 22-
`23
`PO offers no new challenges to the obviousness of the Challenged Claims of
`
`Ground 2. POR 42. 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.
`
`C. Ground 3: Banin in View of Herron Renders Obvious Claims 2-6
`and 18-21
`PO’s only argument for this ground is that a POSITA would not have been
`
`motivated to combine Banin and Herron because Petitioner’s proposed motivation
`
`is allegedly based on hindsight, and because those references are allegedly
`
`incompatible. PO’s first argument is wrong as evidenced by the clear motivation to
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00186: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`combine articulated in the Petition. And PO’s technical arguments are incorrect as
`
`well as represent an improper attempt to physically substitute elements between the
`
`two references. See, e.g., In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(“[T]eachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
`
`substitution of elements.”).
`
`The Board already rejected PO’s first argument that this combination
`
`allegedly is based on hindsight. Compare POR 43, 50-51, with InstDec. 23; see also
`
`Pet. 33-36 (providing a motivation to combine). Indeed, PO does not dispute, and
`
`its own expert admits, that the prior art taught the benefits of using MCCs like
`
`Herron’s cadmium-based MCC to grow nanoparticles. See Ex. 1010, 9198; Ex.
`
`1050, 470-71; Ex. 1069, 44; Ex. 1005, 23:23-27; Ex. 1045, 1578-79, 1584; Ex. 1002
`
`¶¶54-55, 125-30; Ex. 1099, 79:3-19, 80:10-82:3. Moreover, Banin teaches a
`
`POSITA that its gold-based seed can be replaced with a cadmium-based seed such
`
`as Herron’s MCC. Ex. 1005, cl. 30, 25:12-15.
`
`PO now argues that “no one has ever succeeded in using a semiconductor as
`
`a catalyst in SLS-nanorod synthesis,” and contends that semiconductor seeds would
`
`not melt and dissolve precursors as allegedly required by Banin. See POR 43-45,
`
`50. But PO’s argument is unsupported and notably fails to cite a single instance in
`
`which a POSITA tried and failed. Moreover, a POSITA would have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success because semiconductor seeds had successfully
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00186: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`melted and seeded growth of nanoparticles in related vapor-liquid-solid (“VLS”)
`
`nanoparticle synthesis. See Ex. 1098, 274 (using the semiconductor germanium in
`
`VLS growth); Ex. 1093 ¶40; Ex. 2030 ¶50 (recognizing VLS involves melting a
`
`liquid catalyst and dissolving precursors); id. ¶51-52 (stating SLS “is related and
`
`analogous to VLS”). Regardless, a POSITA would have recognized that Herron’s
`
`MCC would seed growth of Banin’s nanorods even if the MCC did not melt. See
`
`Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., 764 F. App’x 873, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`
`(rejecting motivation-to-combine challenge predicated on alleged incompatibility of
`
`two systems taught in the prior art); see, e.g., Ex. 1010, 9198. PO’s “hindsight”
`
`argument should therefore be rejected. POR 43.
`
`PO next argues that a POSITA would not have used Herron’s MCC in Banin’s
`
`process because Banin’s process requires the MCC to melt, and Herron does not
`
`disclose its MCC’s melting temperature. POR 43-45, 47-48. But the melting
`
`temperature of Herron’s MCC is irrelevant because “it is not necessary that the
`
`inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the
`
`invention under review.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see
`
`also Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., 957 F.3d 1334, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2020).10
`
`
`10 The entire discussion of a melting point is irrelevant because Yu explains that un-
`
`melted clusters can seed growth of nanoparticles. See Ex. 1010, 9198 (explaining
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00186: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`PO is also factually wrong that Herron’s MCC would not work with Banin’s
`
`process due to its melting temperature. PO’s expert relies on the melting point of
`
`bulk CdS to estimate the melting point of Herron’s Cd32S14(SC6H5)36·DMF4 MCC.
`
`See Ex. 2030 ¶137. Not only is this (1) the wrong material, but (2) Banin itself
`
`recognizes (and PO’s own expert admits) that small clusters like MCCs melt at lower
`
`temperatures than bulk materials, and that the smaller the cluster, the lower the
`
`melting point. Ex. 1005, 19:6-16; Ex. 2030 ¶137; Ex. 1093 ¶43; Ex. 1099, 126:19-
`
`127:21 (PO’s expert testifying it w
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
