Moreover, without citation to some evidence, for example, in the form of an expert declaration, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that “there are no viable, known compositions ... that undergo a reversible endothermic reaction upon the application of a certain amount of pressure” (Pet. 19).
Also, without other evidence regarding Fan’s disclosure beyond its resistance to being pierced or burst, we are not persuaded that Fan discloses that application and release of pressure by an object on its gel pad activates and deactivates, respectively, its cooling composition, as required by the challenged claims.
Claims 15 and 16 Petitioner states that the “only alleged deficiency [Patent Owner] identified in the district court case is that Xiong does not disclose ‘a pressure activated cooling composition.’” Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1010, 8).
Petitioner further contends that “Fan’s and Xiong’s express disclosure of the advantages and necessity of having ‘channels’ ... constitutes a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine Fan with Xiong, since both described similar solutions to the same problem[s].” Id. at 58.
Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to its challenge that Xiong and Fan render obvious claims 15, 16, 18, and 19 of the ’218 patent.