McClinton Energy Group L.L.C.v.Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 2, 2014

13194871 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2014)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 31
571-272-7822 Entered: September 2, 2014
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

McCLINTON ENERGY GROUP, LLC,
Petitioner,

v.

MAGNUM OIL TOOLS INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2
____________

Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

2
I. BACKGROUND
McClinton Energy Group, LLC (“McClinton”) filed a Petition on
April 2, 2013, requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–20 (“the
challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,413 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
’413 patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd.
(“Magnum”) timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 14 (“Prelim.
Resp.”). Taking into account the information presented in McClinton’s
Petition, as well as the arguments presented in Magnum’s Preliminary
Response, the Board determined that the information presented in the
Petition demonstrated that there was a reasonable likelihood that McClinton
would prevail in challenging claims 1–20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Board instituted this proceeding
on September 23, 2013, as to all of the challenged claims of the ’413 patent.
Paper 16 (“Dec.”).
During this proceeding, Magnum timely filed a Patent Owner
Response (Paper 20, “PO Resp.”), and McClinton timely filed a Reply to the
Patent Owner Response (Paper 22, “Pet. Reply”). An oral hearing was held
on May 8, 2014. Paper 30 (“Tr.”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This decision is a final
written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of the
challenged claims. Based on the record before us, McClinton has
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 are
unpatentable.
A. The ’413 Patent
The ’413 patent relates to downhole tools that are set within a
wellbore with a lower shear mechanism. Ex. 1001, 1:13–15. The ’413
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

3
patent discloses that bridge plugs, packers, and fracking (“frac”) plugs are
downhole tools that typically are used to permanently, or temporarily, isolate
one wellbore zone from another. Id. at 1:17–19. Such isolation is often
necessary to pressure test, perforate, frac, or simulate a zone of the wellbore,
without impacting or communicating with other zones within the wellbore.
Id. at 1:19–22. Plugs typically are removed, or otherwise compromised, in
order to reopen or restore fluid communication through the wellbore. Id. at
1:22–24.
The ’413 patent discloses that the process of removing permanent,
non-retrievable plugs, or packers, typically includes drilling or milling.
Ex. 1001, 1:25–26. However, problems sometimes occur during the
removal or drilling of such non-retrievable plugs. Id. at 1:29–31. For
instance, the non-retrievable plug components can bind upon the drill bit and
rotate within the casing string, thereby resulting in extremely long drill-out
times, excessive casing wear, or both. Id. at 1:31–34.
The ’413 patent also discloses that certain completion or production
activities may require several plugs or plug types that run in series.
Ex. 1001, 1:46–48. However, the uncertainty in the number and types of
plugs that may be required typically leads to the over-purchase, or under-
purchase, of the appropriate number and types of plugs, thereby resulting in
fiscal inefficiencies or field delays. Id. at 1:54–58. The ’413 patent solves
these problems by providing a downhole tool that performs the following
functions: (1) seals the wellbore at wellbore conditions effectively; (2) may
be removed from the wellbore quickly, easily, or reliably; and (3) is capable
of being configured in the field to perform one or more functions. Id. at
1:59–62.
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

4
Figure 1B of the ’413 patent, reproduced below, illustrates a partial
sectional view of an insert that may be threaded to, or disposed within, a
plug. Ex. 1001, 2:8–10; 3:33–35.

Figure 1B illustrates a partial sectional view of
shearable insert 100B for a plug.

The ’413 patent discloses that one or more shearable threads 130 can be
disposed or formed on the inner surface of body 102. Ex. 1001, 3:47–48.
Shearable threads 130 can be used to couple insert 100B to another insert
100 (illustrated in Figure 1A) or 100B, setting tool, tubing string, plug, or
other tool. Id. at 3:48–51.
Figure 2A of the ’413 patent, reproduced below, illustrates a partial
sectional view of a plug configured with the insert 100 or 100B. Ex. 1001,
2:11–13; 5:21–24.
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

5

Figure 2A illustrates a partial sectional view of plug 200
configured with insert 100 or 100B.

The ’413 patent discloses that plug 200 includes mandrel or body 210
having first or upper end 207 and second or lower end 208. Id. at 5:24–26.
Insert 100B can be threaded to, or otherwise disposed within, plug 200 at
lower end 208 of body 210. Id. at 5:34–35. A setting tool, tubing string,
plug, or other tool can enter bore 255 through first end 207 of body 210 and
can be threaded to, coupled to, or disposed within insert 100 or 100B. Id. at
5:36–39. Shearable threads 130 on insert 100 or 100B can be sheared,
fractured, or otherwise deformed, thereby releasing the setting tool, tubing
string, plug, or other tool from plug 200. Id. at 5:39–42.
B. Illustrative Claim
Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 7, and 17 are independent claims.
Claims 2–6 directly depend from independent claim 1, claims 8–16 directly
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

6
or indirectly depend from independent claim 7, and claims 18–20 directly or
indirectly depend from independent claim 17. Independent claim 1 is
illustrative of the invention of the ’413 patent and is reproduced below:
1. A plug for isolating a wellbore, comprising:
a body having a first end and a second end;
at least one malleable element disposed about the body;
at least one slip disposed about the body;
at least one conical member disposed about the body; and
an insert screwed into an inner surface of the body
proximate [to] the second end of the body and adapted to
receive a setting tool that enters the body through the first end
thereof, wherein:
the insert comprises one or more shearable
threads disposed on an inner surface thereof;
the insert has a passageway extending
therethrough;
the one or more shearable threads are adapted to
engage the setting tool; and
the one or more shearable threads are adapted to
deform to release the setting tool when exposed to a
predetermined axial force, thereby providing a flow
passage through the insert and the body.

Ex. 1001, 13:56–14:7 (emphases added).
C. Related Proceedings
McClinton indicates that the ’413 patent was asserted against it in
Magnum Oil Tools Int’l LLC v. Tony D. McClinton, No. 2:12-cv-00099
(S.D. Tex.). Pet. 1. Both parties indicate that the ’413 patent is related to
the following three patent applications, two of which already have issued as
patents: (1) U.S. Patent Application No. 12/317,497, filed December 23,
2008—now U.S. Patent No. 8,496,052; (2) U.S. Patent Application No.
13/329,077, filed December 16, 2011—now U.S. Patent No. 8,459,346; and
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

7
(3) U.S. Patent Application No. 13/329,096, filed December 16, 2011.
Pet. 1; Prelim. Resp. 5.
D. Prior Art Relied Upon
McClinton relies upon the following prior art references:
Cockrell US 4,437,516 Mar. 20, 1984 Ex. 1005
Slup US 6,708,768 B2 Mar. 23, 2004 Ex. 1006
Lehr US 2007/0151722 A1 July 5, 2007 Ex. 1007
Streich US 5,224,540 July 6, 1993 Ex. 1008
McKeachnie US 7,350,582 B2 Apr. 1, 2008 Ex. 1009
Kristiansen US 4,595,052 June 17, 1986 Ex. 1010

E. Grounds of Unpatentability
We instituted this proceeding based on the grounds of unpatentability
set forth in the table below.
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

8
Challenged Claims Basis References1
1–3, 5–8, 12, and 13 § 103(a) Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen
4 and 9–11 § 103(a) Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, and Slup
14 and 16 § 103(a) Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, and Streich
15 § 103(a) Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, Streich, and McKeachnie
17–19 § 103(a) Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, Slup and Streich
20 § 103(a) Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, Slup, Streich, and McKeachnie

II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, we construe a claim by applying the
broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in
which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Office Patent Trial Practice
Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
1. Claim Phrases Previously Construed
In its Petition, McClinton provided a construction for each of the
following claim phrases: (1) “first end” and “second end”; (2) “shearable

1 For each of the grounds of unpatentability instituted in this proceeding,
Kristiansen was omitted inadvertently from the statement of the ground of
unpatentability, yet nonetheless included in the corresponding analysis. See,
e.g., Pet. 44, 46–47. In the Decision to Institute, we treated each incorrect
statement of the ground of unpatentability as mere harmless error and
presumed that McClinton intended to assert that claims 1–20 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based, in whole or in part, on the
combination of Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen. Accord Prelim. Resp. 20–
21 (confirming that the grounds of unpatentability asserted by McClinton
were based, in whole or in part, on the combination of Lehr, Cockrell, and
Kristiansen).
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

9
threads”; and (3) “the first and second ends of the body each comprise anti-
rotation features formed thereon.” Pet. 17–22. In its Preliminary Response,
Magnum only contested McClinton’s claim constructions with respect to
“shearable threads” and “the first and second ends of the body each
comprise anti-rotation features formed thereon.” Prelim Resp. 7–9. In the
Decision to Institute, we construed each claim phrase identified by
McClinton. Dec. 9–14.
During trial, McClinton and Magnum did not dispute our claim
constructions for the claim phrases identified above. We discern no reason
to alter our claim construction for each claim phrase set forth in the Decision
to Institute in this Final Written Decision. For convenience, each claim
phrase we construed in the Decision to Institute is reproduced in the table
below.
Claim Phrase(s) Claim Construction in the Decision to Institute
“first end” and “second
“end” (claims 1, 3, 7,
12, and 17)
“a first end of a downhole tool relative to a
second end of the downhole tool”
“shearable threads”
(claims 1, 7, 17, and 19)
“spiral ridges that are designed to shear, fracture,
break, or otherwise deform thereby releasing two
or more engaged components, parts, or things”
“the first and second
ends of the body each
comprise anti-rotation
features formed
thereon” (claims 3 and
12)
“the anti-rotation features are formed on the first
and second ends of the body”
2. “Setting tool” (claims 1–20)
In its Patent Owner Response, Magnum contends that, since
McClinton filed its Petition, a dispute has arisen between the parties in the
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

10
related district court case regarding the claim term “setting tool.”
PO Resp. 10. Magnum alleges that, in the related district court case,
McClinton proposed a narrow claim construction for the claim term “setting
tool” that was not accepted by the court, and should not be accepted for
purposes of this proceeding, because it is not the broadest reasonable
interpretation. Id. at 11. Magnum argues that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim term “setting tool” is “any device used in the
installation process of the plug within the wellbore, and includes any outer
cylinder, adapter rod, and/or extender.” Id. at 13. To support its claim
construction, Magnum directs us to various portions of the Specification of
the ’413 patent, as well as the prosecution history of the ’413 patent. Id. at
11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:35–38, 46–52, 62–67; Ex. 3002).
In response, McClinton acknowledges that the court overseeing the
related case accepted Magnum’s claim construction for the claim term
“setting tool.” Pet. Reply 14. McClinton then urges us to apply that claim
construction in this proceeding because it is the broadest reasonable
interpretation. Id. In addition, upon inquiry during oral argument,
McClinton agrees that Magnum’s proposed claim construction for the claim
term “setting tool” is the broadest reasonable interpretation for purposes of
this proceeding. Tr. 6:24–7:25.
Upon reviewing the Specification of the ’413 patent, we do not find
an explicit definition for the claim term “setting tool.” Therefore, we refer
to its ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). For purposes
of this proceeding, we adopt Magnum’s claim construction because it is
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

11
consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of a “setting tool,” as
would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art in light of the
Specification of the ’413 patent.
3. “The outer surface of the insert” (claim 2)
Dependent claim 2 recites “the outer surface of the insert has a larger
diameter and a small diameter forming a shoulder therebetween, the
shoulder adapted to anchor the insert within the body.” Ex. 1001, 14:8–11
(emphasis added). Neither McClinton nor Magnum provides an explicit
construction for this claim phrase. As a first step in our analysis, we must
ascertain its scope and meaning. Upon reviewing the Specification of the
’413 patent, we note the following disclosure:
[t]he outer surface of the insert 100, 100B can have a
constant diameter, or its diameter can vary, as depicted in FIGS.
1A and 1B. For example, the outer surface can include a small
first diameter portion or area 140 that transitions to a larger,
second diameter portion or area 142, forming a ledge or
shoulder 144 therebetween.

Ex. 1001, 4:41–46. This cited disclosure does not define explicitly the claim
phrase “the outer surface of the insert.” Despite the lack of an explicit
definition, however, this claim phrase is relatively simple to understand.
Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in light of the
Specification of the ’413 patent, we construe the claim phrase “the outer
surface of the insert” to be “any surface located on the outside of the insert,
including the top, bottom, and sides.”
B. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
In determining the level of one with ordinary skill in the art, various
factors may be considered, including “type of problems encountered in the
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

12
art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
(citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955,
962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). There is uncontested evidence in the record before us
that reflects the knowledge level of a person with ordinary skill in the art.
McClinton’s expert, Dr. Gary R. Wooley, attests that a person with ordinary
skill in the art would be an individual with a bachelor’s degree in an
engineering discipline, such as mechanical engineering, who possesses two
years of work experience with frac plugs used in the fracture simulation of
oil and gas wells. Ex. 1020 ¶ 9; see PO Resp. 28; Ex. 3004 ¶ 34.
C. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Grounds of Unpatentability Based
on Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen
McClinton contends that claims 1–3, 5–8, 12, and 13 are unpatentable
under § 103(a) over the combination of Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen.
Pet. 44–49. In support of this alleged ground of unpatentability, McClinton
provides explanations as to how the proffered combination teaches each
claim limitation. Id. McClinton also submits the Declaration of Dr. Wooley
(Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 71–80) to support its positions. Upon reviewing McClinton’s
Petition and supporting evidence, as well as Magnum’s Patent Owner
Response and supporting evidence, we determine that McClinton has
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 5–8, 12,
and 13 are unpatentable over the combination of Lehr, Cockrell, and
Kristiansen.
We begin our analysis with the principles of law that generally apply
to a ground of unpatentability based on obviousness, followed by brief
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

13
discussions of Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen, and then we turn to the
arguments presented by both McClinton and Magnum that are directed
towards each challenged claim.
1. Principles of law
A patent claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We
also recognize that prior art references must be “considered together with the
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen,
30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562
(CCPA 1978)). We analyze the ground of unpatentability based on the
combination of Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen with the principles identified
above in mind.
2. Lehr
Lehr generally relates to a release device that may be used with
downhole setting tools. Ex. 1007 ¶ 3. In particular, Lehr discloses that the
release device deforms to provide a releasable detachment mechanism for a
setting tool used to set a downhole tool, such as a frac plug. Id.
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

14
Figure 1 of Lehr, reproduced below, illustrates a cross-sectional view
of a setting tool, adapter kit, and packer, wherein the packer is retained on
the adapter kit by the deformable release device. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 25, 38.

Figure 1 illustrates a cross-sectional view of
a setting tool, adapter kit, and packer.

Lehr discloses wireline adapter kit 20 that includes adapter sleeve 40 and
release stinger 50. Ex. 1007 ¶ 39. Adapter sleeve 40 is threaded onto
wireline pressure setting assembly 10 and extends down to packer assembly
70, e.g., frac plug. Id. Plunger 80 is threaded onto the downhole end of
release stinger 50. Id.
Lehr discloses that packer assembly 70 includes upper cap 71, upper
slip 72, upper cone 73, elastomeric packing element 74, lower cone 75,
lower slip 76, lower cap 77, and mandrel 78. Ex. 1007 ¶ 40. Mandrel 78
provides general support for each of the components of packer assembly 70.
Id. During the process of setting packer assembly 70, deformable release
device 30 retains the packer assembly on release stinger 50. Id. ¶ 44.
Deformable release device 30 contacts protruding section 83 of plunger 80,
which is attached to the lower end of release stinger 50. Id. Retaining pins
31 secure deformable release device 30 to mandrel 78 of packer assembly
70. Id. According to one embodiment disclosed in Lehr, when a
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

15
predetermined upward force is applied to plunger 80, protruding portion 83
of plunger 80 deforms beveled portion 32 of deformable release device 30,
allowing for release of plunger 80. Id. ¶ 50.
3. Cockrell
Cockrell relates to downhole tools that are used in the development of
oil and gas wells for providing an annular seal and/or anchoring means
between one conduit disposed in another. Ex. 1005, 1:7–10. In particular,
the invention disclosed in Cockrell pertains to a combination shear type and
rotational type release mechanism for downhole tools. Id. at 1:10–13.
Figure 1C of Cockrell, reproduced below, illustrates a vertical
elevation view, in a central longitudinal section, of a downhole well
apparatus that includes the combination shear type and rotational type
release mechanism. Ex. 1005, 2:63–66, 3:37–40.

Figure 1C illustrates packer 10 that is characterized by elongated inner
tubular member or mandrel 12, which includes threads 134 adapted to
engage frangible release member 136.
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

16

Cockrell discloses that mandrel 12 includes threads 134 extending
over a portion of the outer cylindrical surface of the mandrel in the vicinity
of nut member 126. Ex. 1005, 5:40–42. Mandrel 12 is engaged by frangible
release member 136, which comprises a cylindrical sleeve that includes
respective external and internal threads 138 and 140 adapted to cooperate,
respectively, with threads 128 and 134. Id. at 5:43–47. Depending on the
number of cooperating threads 134–140 in engagement, it is possible to
determine the axial force necessary to effect shearing of threads 140 in order
to permit relative upward axial movement of mandrel 12 with respect to nut
member 126 when the latter is engaged with head 56 through resilient collar
116. Id. at 5:54–60.
4. Kristiansen
Kristiansen generally relates to a bridge plug that is used for sealing,
in transitory or permanent form, the perforations lined with pipes or tubes of
insulation, particularly those that are used in oil wells or the like. Ex. 1010,
1:6–10. Figure 13a of Kristiansen, reproduced below, illustrates the cross-
sectional view of a converter plug. Id. at 5:4–5, 30–31.

Figure 13a illustrates a converter plug.
Kristiansen discloses threading converter plug 4 in body 6 of the
bridge plug (illustrated in Figure 1). Ex. 1010, 5:30–31. Another
embodiment, shown in Figure 17 of Kristiansen, reproduced below,
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

17
illustrates a cross-sectional view of converter plug 4' as a calibrated element.
Id. at 5:13–14, 7:13–16.

Figure 17 illustrates converter plug 4' threaded into the body of plug 6.
5. Claims 1 and 7
As an initial matter, Magnum states in its Patent Owner Response that
it incorporates by reference all the arguments presented in its Preliminary
Response. PO Resp. 19. In its Reply, McClinton contends that our rules
strictly prohibit incorporating arguments by reference. Pet. Reply 12 (citing
37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference
from one document into another document. Combined motions, oppositions,
replies, or other combined documents are not permitted.”)). We agree with
McClinton. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3), a party involved in a
proceeding before us is forbidden from incorporating arguments from one
document—in this case, the Preliminary Response—into another
document—namely, the Patent Owner Response. Therefore, we will only
consider the arguments developed and presented in the Patent Owner
Response, itself.
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

18
a. The Combination of Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen
Properly Accounts for Each Limitation Recited in
Independent Claims 1 and 7

Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant parts, “an insert screwed into
an inner surface of the body . . . adapted to receive a setting tool,” “the insert
comprises one or more shearable threads disposed on an inner surface,” “the
insert has a passageway,” “the one or more shearable threads are adapted to
deform to release the setting tool . . . thereby providing a flow passage
through the insert and the body.” Ex. 1001, 13:56–14:7. Independent claim
7 recites similar claim limitations. Id. at 14:26–49.
In its Petition, McClinton contends that the collective teachings of
Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen render obvious the claim limitations
identified above. Pet. 44–49. In particular, McClinton argues that Lehr’s
disclosure of a setting tool that connects to an insert, i.e., deformable release
device 30, in a downhole plug, i.e., packer assembly 70 or frac plug, teaches
all the claim limitations recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited
in independent claim 7, except: “(1) the requirement . . . of threads that
shear in response to a predetermined axial force; and (2) the requirement . . .
of threads on the outside of the insert that screw into the inner surface of the
plug body.” Id. at 45–47. McClinton relies upon Cockrell’s shearable
threads 134, 138, and 140 to teach threads that shear in response to a
predetermined axial force, as well as Kristiansen’s insert 4 that is threaded
into the body of plug 6 to teach threads on the outside of the insert that
screw into the inner surface of the plug body. See, e.g., id. at 29–33, 46–47
(citing Ex. 1005, 5:43–47, 54–60, fig. 1C; Ex. 1010, 5:30–31, figs. 13 and
17).
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

19
In its Patent Owner Response, Magnum contends that Lehr’s
deformable release device 30 is not located within an inner surface of the
plug body, or otherwise made to attach or secure to the inner surface of the
plug body. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 1005, figs. 3A and 8A; Ex. 3004 ¶¶ 26–
28). Magnum then argues that McClinton improperly relied upon Lehr’s
deformable release device 30 to teach the “insert,” as recited in independent
claims 1 and 7. Id. at 21–22. Magnum also argues that neither Cockrell nor
Kristiansen cure the deficiency identified above in Lehr. Id. at 22.
In its Reply, McClinton asserts that Magnum’s argument that Lehr’s
deformable release device 30 is not located within the inner surface of the
plug body ignores Figures 1, 4A, and 4B of Lehr, all of which illustrate
deformable release device 30 located within the body of the plug.
Pet. Reply. 4 (citing Ex. 1007, figs. 1, 4A, and 4B). McClinton argues that
its expert, Dr. Wooley, corroborated its position by providing citations to
relevant passages and figures in Lehr. Id. (citing Ex. 1020 ¶ 80—
specifically, pages 59–60). McClinton also argues that Magnum’s expert,
Kevin Trahan, conceded during cross-examination that Lehr’s deformable
release device 30 may be located within the body of the plug. Id. at 4–5
(citing Ex. 1026, 40:17–41:4). We agree with McClinton that Lehr discloses
at least one embodiment where deformable release device 30 is located
within the body of the plug.
Figure 4A of Lehr, an annotated version of the relevant portion of
which is reproduced below, illustrates one embodiment of packer assembly
70, e.g., frac plug, being run into the wellbore using wireline adapter kit 20
and deformable release device 30. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 30, 51.
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

20

As shown in the relevant portion of Figure 4A of Lehr, deformable
release device 30 is located within lower cap 77 of packer assembly 70 (the
red shaded area). See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 39 (“packer assembly 70, such as a
Python Frac Plug Assembly”), 41 (“packer assembly 70 (i.e., lower cap 77,
lower cone 75, and lower slip 76)”). Based on the embodiment illustrated in
Figure 4A of Lehr, as well as the related description of packer assembly 70,
we are persuaded that McClinton has presented sufficient evidence to
support a finding that Lehr’s deformable release device 30 may be located
within the body of the frac plug.
b. McClinton Provides Sufficient Rationales to Combine
Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen

In its Patent Owner Response, Magnum contends that McClinton
improperly asserts that Alpha’s shear insert ring2 is similar to Lehr’s
deformable release device 30. PO Resp. 22–23. Magnum directs us to the

2 In its Petition, McClinton proposes numerous grounds of unpatentability
based, in part, on Alpha. Pet. 27–44. We did not institute an inter partes
review as to those grounds of unpatentability. Notwithstanding, to support
its argument that one with ordinary skill in the art would have combined the
teachings of Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen, McClinton refers back to its
discussion on how one with ordinary skill in the art would have combined
the teachings of Alpha, Cockrell, and Kristiansen. Id. at 30, 47.
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

21
Declaration of Mr. Trahan to supports its arguement that Alpha and Lehr
disclose completely different plugs with different components, structures,
and methods of operation. Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1004, figure of Alpha’s shear
insert ring; Ex. 1007, fig. 8A; Ex. 3004 ¶ 23). Based on those differences,
Magnum asserts that simply referring to how one of ordinary skill in the art
would combine the teachings of Alpha, Cockrell, and Kristiansen does not,
in any way, describe how one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the
teachings of Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen. Id. at 23–24. Along the same
lines, Magnum contends that McClinton fails to establish a reasonable
expectation of success for combining the teachings of Lehr, Cockrell, and
Kristiansen to arrive at the claimed invention. Id. at 25–26. Magnum also
generally alleges that modifying Lehr with the teachings of Cockrell and
Kristiansen is beyond the level of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Id. at 27–28.
In its Reply, McClinton contends that the Petition, along with the
corroborating testimony of Dr. Wooley, explains why one with ordinary skill
in the art would combine the teachings of Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen.
Pet. Reply 9–10 (citing Pet. 44–47; Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 71–80). McClinton
recognizes that Magnum directs us to the Declaration of Mr. Trahan to
demonstrate the differences between Alpha and Lehr, but asserts that
Mr. Trahan simply offers conclusory statements in that regard. Id. at 10.
McClinton then provides a number of examples where Mr. Trahan admitted
during cross-examination that Alpha and Lehr disclose similar features—
namely, frac plugs that have a body, malleable element, slip, conical
member, inserts that are bottom-set, etc. Id. at 10–11. Based on those
alleged similarities, McClinton argues that Mr. Trahan’s cross-examination
testimony supports combining the teachings of Lehr, Cockrell, and
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

22
Kristiansen in the same manner as combining the teachings of Alpha,
Cockrell, and Kristiansen. Id. at 11.
We do not credit Mr. Trahan’s testimony concerning the differences
between Alpha and Lehr because it is conclusory in nature. According to
37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a), “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the
underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or
no weight.” See Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (stating a lack of objective support for
expert opinion “may render the testimony of little probative value in [a
patentability] determination”). In his Declaration, Mr. Trahan testifies that:
the deformable disk of Lehr cannot be modified in the same
manner as the insert in Alpha. Lehr and Alpha are different in
their components, structures, and methods of operation.
Specifically, Alpha’s insert and Lehr’s deformable disk are
completely different structures with no similarities. Therefore,
the same rationales used to modify Alpha cannot be used to
modify Lehr.

Ex. 3004 ¶ 23 (emphasis omitted). However, Mr. Trahan provides little, if
any, support for these statements. Absent underlying facts or data to support
his opinion, we are not persuaded by Magnum’s assertion that, given the
differences between Alpha’s shear insert ring and Lehr’s deformable release
device 30, one with ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized these
components to be interchangeable.
Regardless of the alleged differences between Alpha and Lehr
asserted by Magnum in its Patent Owner Response, we are persuaded that
McClinton provides sufficient rationales for combining the teachings of
Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen. As we explained in the Decision to Institute
(Dec. 20–21, 24–25), when McClinton discusses the alleged ground of
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

23
unpatentability based on the combination of Alpha, Cockrell, and
Kristiansen in its Petition, McClinton indicates why it would have been
obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine Cockrell and
Kristiansen with other prior art directed to downhole plugs. Pet. 47.
McClinton asserts, and we agree, that the same analysis applies to the
combinations using Lehr as the base reference. Id.
In the alleged grounds of unpatentability based on the combination of
Alpha, Cockrell, and Kristiansen, McClinton concludes that:
[i]t would have been obvious to combine the shearable
threads from Cockrell with the Alpha Standard Frac Plug since
it would have been simply substituting [the] shearable threads
from Cockrell for the shear ring of Alpha to obtain a predictable
result of an insert maintained in one larger piece to reduce the
chance of large components falling in the wellbore.

Pet. 30. Other than assert that there are alleged differences between Alpha’s
shear ring insert and Lehr’s deformable release device 30, which as we
explained above was not persuasive, Magnum does not explain adequately
why the same analysis is not applicable to Lehr. For instance, Magnum does
not explain why the simple substitution of shearable threads, as taught by
Cockrell (Ex. 1005, 5:43–47, 54–60), for retaining pins 31 that secure the
deformable release device 30, as taught by Lehr (Ex. 1007 ¶ 44), would not
yield a predictable result. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Moreover, Magnum
does not provide sufficient or credible evidence that such a substitution is
beyond the level of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc.
v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
McClinton also takes the position that one with ordinary skill in the
art would have recognized that packer assembly 70, e.g., frac plug, as taught
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

24
by Lehr (Ex. 1007 ¶ 39), may include a threaded connection, as taught by
Kristiansen (Ex. 1010, 5:30–31), between deformable release device 30 and
the body of the frac plug. See, e.g., Pet. 33. According to McClinton,
placing Kristiansen’s threads on both the outer surface of Lehr’s deformable
release device 30 and the inner surface of the frac plug combines prior art
elements according to known methods to yield a predictable result—namely,
an insert that is capable of being screwed into an inner surface of the body of
the frac plug to hold it in place for the purpose of simplifying assembly. See
id.; KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. In our view, McClinton’s suggestions for
combining the teachings of Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen each suffice as
an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to justify the legal
conclusion of obviousness.
c. Modifying Lehr with the Teachings of Cockrell and Kristiansen Would
Not Require a Major Redesign of Lehr

In its Patent Owner Response, Magnum contends that modifying Lehr
with the teachings of Cockrell and Kristiansen would require a major
redesign of Lehr because deformable release device 30 is not located within
the body of the plug. PO Resp. 24. Magnum further argues that such a
combination would require Lehr’s plunger 80 and release device 30 to be
redesigned to include, amongst other things, threads on the outer surface of
deformable release device 30 after the plunger 80 and deformable release
device 30 are modified to both fit within the body of the plug. Id. at 24–25
(citing Ex. 3004 ¶¶ 24–26). We do not agree with Magnum.
Magnum’s argument is predicated on the notion that Lehr’s
deformable release device 30 is not located within the body of the plug.
However, as we explained previously, Figure 4A of Lehr illustrates at least
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

25
one embodiment where deformable release device 30 is located within the
body of the plug. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 39, 41. Therefore, contrary to Magnum’s
assertion, Lehr would not need to be modified to accommodate an “insert
screwed into an inner surface of the body,” as recited in independent claims
1 and 7, because Lehr already discloses such a configuration.
With respect to Magnum’s argument that modifying Lehr with the
teachings of Cockrell and Kristiansen requires other modifications to Lehr’s
plunger 80 and release device 30, Magnum does not present sufficient or
credible evidence that such modifications would be substantial, or otherwise
require a complete redesign of Lehr. The only evidence Magnum directs us
to as supporting its argument is the testimony of Mr. Trahan. PO Resp. 25
(citing Ex. 3004 ¶¶ 24–26). We have reviewed the cited paragraphs in
Mr. Trahan’s Declaration, and similar to our previous explanation regarding
his testimony, Mr. Trahan provides little, if any, support for his statements
that modifying Lehr with the teachings of Cockrell and Kristiansen would
require substantial modifications to Lehr’s plunger 80 and release device 30.
As such, his statements in that regard are of little probative value. See
37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).
d. Lehr Does Not Teach Away from Cockrell and, as a Result, Does Not
Teach Away From the Claimed Invention

In its Patent Owner Response, Magnum directs our attention to two
disclosures in Lehr to support its argument that Lehr teaches away from
Cockrell. PO Resp. 26–27. For convenience, those disclosures are
reproduced in turn. Lehr discloses that “[o]ne potential problem with using
release devices that fail under a designated mechanical force, such as a
release stud or shear pin, is that debris from the release device remains in the
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

26
well bore after the device has released.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 10. Lehr further
discloses that the “use of a plunger 80 and deformable release device 30
decreases the manufacturing costs of adapter kits and downhole tools as
compared to using other mechanically releasing devices such as shear pins
and shear screws.” Id. ¶ 48. Based on these cited disclosures, Magnum
contends that Lehr teaches away from Cockrell because Lehr discourages
the use of mechanical shearing devices, such as the shearing threads taught
by Cockrell. PO Resp. 27.
In its Reply, McClinton contends that, although shear pins may be less
desirable than shear rings or threads to achieve the stated goal in Lehr, both
rings, as taught by Lehr, and threads, as taught by Cockrell and Kristiansen,
constitute interchangeable deformable release devices that allow
construction of a plug without drilling extra holes into the plug. Pet. Reply 8
(citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 13). McClinton also argues that, contrary to Magnum’s
assertion, debris from sheared threads is negligible compared to the debris
from large components, such as the release studs and shear pins discouraged
by Lehr. Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 10).
Although [determining whether] a reference [] teaches
away is a significant factor to be considered in determining
unobviousness, the nature of the teaching is highly relevant, and
must be weighed in substance. A known or obvious
composition does not become patentable simply because it has
been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for
the same use.

In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Along the same lines, the
mere fact that different types of deformable release devices offer different
advantages or disadvantages does not establish a teaching away sufficient to
preclude a conclusion of obviousness. “[C]ase law does not require that a
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

27
particular combination must be the preferred, or the most desirable,
combination described in the prior art in order to provide [the] motivation
[or reason] for the current invention.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
Simply because Lehr discloses some disadvantages associated with
the use of mechanical shearing devices, such as the shearing threads taught
by Cockrell, does not mean that one with ordinary skill in the art would not
have appreciated that Cockrell’s shearing threads are a viable substitute for
Lehr’s retaining pins 31. Moreover, Magnum does not provide sufficient or
credible evidence indicating that any debris resulting from the release of
Cockrell’s shearing threads, which as we explained above may be
substituted for Lehr’s retaining pins 31, would impact substantially the
operation of Lehr’s deformable release device 30 and packer assembly 70.
Absent contrary evidence, we are not persuaded that Lehr teaches away from
Cockrell and, as a result, we are not persuaded that Lehr teaches away from
the claimed invention.
e. Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness—Copying
In its Patent Owner Response, Magnum contends that, not only are
there internal documents indicating that McClinton copied the plug
embodied in the claimed invention, but there also is evidence that McClinton
disassembled the plug embodied in the claimed invention and attempted to
replicate it. PO Resp. 29. Magnum then provides a side-by-side picture
comparison of the plug embodied in the claimed invention and an alleged
infringing plug made by McClinton before asserting that such evidence
clearly indicates that McClinton made a concerted effort to copy and
replicate its claimed invention. Id. at 29–30.
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

28
In its Reply, McClinton contends that there is no evidence of record to
support Magnum’s side-by-side picture comparison of the plug embodied in
the claimed invention and the alleged infringing plug made by McClinton.
Pet. Reply 12–13. McClinton asserts that the pictures reproduced in
Magnum’s Patent Owner Response only provide a partial view of the plugs
and do not show the significant differences between the two products. Id. at
13.
To be of relevance, evidence of non-obviousness—in this case,
copying—must be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In re
Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791,
792 (CCPA 1971)); In re Hiniker, 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In
that regard, in order to be accorded substantial weight, there must be a nexus
between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence of secondary
considerations. GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1580. “Nexus” is a legally and factually
sufficient connection between the objective evidence and the claimed
invention, such that the objective evidence should be considered in
determining non-obviousness. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff
Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The burden of
showing that there is a nexus lies with the patent owner. Id.; Paulsen, 30
F.3d at 1482.
The evidence of non-obviousness presented by Magnum falls short of
demonstrating the required nexus. Although Magnum provides a side-by-
side comparison of the alleged infringing plug made by McClinton with a
plug Magnum asserts embodies the claimed invention, Magnum does not
establish that its plug is directed to the claimed subject matter recited in
claims 1–3, 5–8, 12, and 13. Nor does Magnum direct us to testimony from
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

29
its expert, Mr. Trahan, that establishes a connection between its plug that
allegedly embodies the claimed invention and claimed subject matter recited
in claims 1–3, 5–8, 12, and 13. In the absence of an established nexus with
the claimed invention, Magnum’s allegation of copying is entitled to little
weight, and generally has no bearing on the legal issue of obviousness. See
In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
After weighing the evidence of obviousness based on the combination
of Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen, as well as the evidence of secondary
considerations regarding copying, on balance, we conclude that the strong
evidence of obviousness outweighs the weak evidence of non-obviousness.
f. Summary
Based on the record before us, we conclude that McClinton has
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claims 1
and 7 are obvious over the combination of Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen.
6. Claim 2
Dependent claim 2 recites “the outer surface of the insert has a larger
diameter and a smaller diameter forming a shoulder therebetween, the
shoulder adapted to anchor the insert within the body.” Ex. 1001, 14:8–11.
In its Petition, McClinton reproduces an annotated version of Figure
9D of Lehr, and then contends that the shoulder and corresponding
diameters illustrated in that figure render obvious the claimed subject matter
recited in dependent claim 2. Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1007, fig. 9D; Ex. 1020
¶ 80—specifically, pages 67–69). For convenience, Figure 9D of Lehr and
the annotations added by McClinton are reproduced below.
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

30

Figure 9D of Lehr illustrates one embodiment of
deformable release device 30.

In its Patent Owner Response, Magnum first relies upon essentially
the same arguments presented against independent claim 1 to rebut the
explanations provided by McClinton as to how the combination of Lehr,
Cockrell, and Kristiansen teach the claimed subject matter recited in
dependent claim 2. PO Resp. 31–32. For the same reasons discussed above
with respect to independent claim 1, Magnum’s arguments are not
persuasive.
Next, Magnum contends that Lehr does not teach “the outer surface of
the insert has a larger diameter and a smaller diameter forming a shoulder
therebetween,” as recited in dependent claim 2. PO Resp. 32. In particular,
Magnum argues that the annotated version of Figure 9D of Lehr, reproduced
above, does not depict the claimed “shoulder” on the outer surface of Lehr’s
deformable release device 30, as required by dependent claim 2. Id.
Instead, Magnum argues that the shoulder identified in the annotated version
of Figure 9D of Lehr, and corroborated by Dr. Wooley, is on the top surface
of Lehr’s deformable release device 30—not the outer surface. Id.
In its Reply, McClinton contends that Magnum merely attempts to
correct the record and does not contest the explanations provided by
McClinton as to how the combination of Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

31
teach the claimed subject matter recited in dependent claim 2. Pet. Reply
13.
At the outset, we disagree with McClinton that Magnum merely
attempts to correct the record. Instead, we view Magnum’s position as a
separate and distinct patentability argument. Notwithstanding, we are
persuaded that McClinton has presented sufficient evidence to support a
finding that Lehr teaches “the outer surface of the insert has a larger
diameter and a smaller diameter forming a shoulder therebetween,” as
recited in dependent claim 2.
Magnum’s argument is predicated on the notion that the outer surface
of Lehr’s deformable release device 30 somehow excludes the top surface.
As we explained previously, we construe the claim phrase “the outer surface
of the insert” to be “any surface located on the outside of the insert,
including the top, bottom, and sides.” Consistent with this claim
construction, the annotated version of Figure 9D of Lehr presented by
McClinton in its Petition, as well as the related description of deformable
release device 30 (Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 50, 57), collectively teaches that beveled
portion 32 or the shoulder is located on the outer surface of Lehr’s
deformable release device 30.
Based on the record before us, we conclude that McClinton has
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claim 2 is
obvious over the combination of Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen.

IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

32
7. Claims 3, 6, 8, 12, and 13
In its Petition, McClinton provides contentions and supporting
evidence that explain how the combination of Lehr, Cockrell, and
Kristiansen teaches the claimed subject matter recited in dependent claims 3,
6, 8, 12, and 13. Pet. 48–49 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶ 80—specifically, pages 69–
70, 72–73). In our view, McClinton presents sufficient evidence to support a
finding that the proffered combination teaches the claimed subject matter
recited in these dependent claims. In its Patent Owner Response, Magnum
relies upon essentially the same arguments presented against independent
claims 1 and 7 to rebut the explanations provided by McClinton as to how
the combination of Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen teaches the claimed
subject matter recited in dependent claims 3, 6, 8, 12, and 13. PO Resp. 31–
34. For the same reasons discussed above with respect to independent
claims 1 and 7, Magnum’s arguments are not persuasive. Based on the
record before us, we conclude that McClinton has demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that dependent claims 3, 6, 8, 12, and 13 are
obvious over the combination of Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen.
8. Claim 5
Dependent claim 5 recites “the predetermined axial force to release
the setting tool is less than an axial force required to break the body.”
Ex. 1001, 14:22–24.
In its Petition, McClinton contends that the claimed subject matter of
dependent claim 5 would have been obvious because, if the body of the plug
were to fail before the plug is set, the plug would be inoperable as it would
not be set within the wellbore. See, e.g., Pet. 34, 48 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶ 45—
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

33
specifically, page 33). McClinton also argues that all prior art frac plugs
have this feature, otherwise, they would be useless. Id.
In its Patent Owner Response, Magnum contends that the combination
of Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen does not teach the claimed subject matter
recited in dependent claim 5. PO Resp. 32. In particular, Magnum argues
that neither the Petition nor Dr. Wooley adequately explain why this claim
limitation would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art. Id.
at 32–33. Instead, Magnum argues that McClinton simply relies upon a
conclusory statement from Dr. Wooley to support its position. Id. at 33.
In its Reply, McClinton contends that Magnum does not rebut
Dr. Wooley’s position that, if the body of the plug were to fail before the
plug is set, the plug would be inoperable as it would not be set within the
wellbore. Pet. Reply 13. McClinton argues that Magnum did not cross
examine Dr. Wooley. Id. McClinton also argues that Magnum’s expert,
Mr. Trahan, admitted during cross-examination that McClinton’s position
regarding dependent claim 5 was correct. Id. at 13–14 (citing Ex. 1026,
26:18–27:8, 41:1–9).
We credit the testimony of Dr. Wooley that, if the body of the plug
were to fail before the plug is set, the plug would be inoperable as it would
not be set within the wellbore. Ex. 1020 ¶ 45—specifically, page 33.
Dr. Wooley’s testimony is consistent with the disclosure in Lehr that, if
deformable release device 30 is used with packer assembly 70, one with
ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the deformation force
needs to be greater than the setting force required to set packer assembly 70.
Ex. 1007 ¶ 57; Ex. 1020 ¶ 80—specifically, pages 69–70. Other than mere
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

34
attorney argument, Magnum does not provide sufficient or credible evidence
that contradicts Dr. Wooley’s testimony.
Based on the record before us, we conclude that McClinton has
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claim 5 is
obvious over the combination of Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen.
D. Remaining 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Grounds of Unpatentability Based
in Part on Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen
In its Petition, McClinton provides contentions and supporting
evidence that explain how the combinations of Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen,
and various other prior art references teach the claimed subject matter
recited in independent claim 17, as well as dependent claims 4, 9–11, 14–16,
and 18–20. Pet. 49–54 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 81–104). In our view,
McClinton presents sufficient evidence to support a finding that the
proffered combinations teach the claimed subject matter recited in these
claims. In its Patent Owner Response, Magnum relies upon essentially the
same arguments presented against independent claims 1 and 7 to rebut the
explanations provided by McClinton as to how the combinations of Lehr,
Cockrell, Kristiansen, and various other prior art references teach the
claimed subject matter recited in in independent claim 17, as well as
dependent claims 4, 9–11, 14–16, and 18–20. PO Resp. 34–37. For the
same reasons discussed above with respect to independent claims 1 and 7,
Magnum’s arguments are not persuasive.
Based on the record before us, we conclude that McClinton has
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) dependent claims
4 and 9–11 are obvious over the combination of Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen,
and Slup; (2) dependent claims 14 and 16 are obvious over the combination
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

35
of Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, and Streich; (3) dependent claim 15 is
obvious over the combination of Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, Streich, and
McKeachnie; (4) independent claim 17, as well as dependent claims 18 and
19, are obvious over the combination of Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, Slup,
and Streich; and (5) dependent claim 20 is obvious over the combination of
Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, Slup, Streich, and McKeachnie.

III. CONCLUSION
McClinton has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 1–20 of the ’413 patent are unpatentable based on the grounds of
unpatentability set forth in the table below.
Claims Basis References
1–3, 5–8, 12, and 13 § 103(a) Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen
4 and 9–11 § 103(a) Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, and Slup
14 and 16 § 103(a) Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, and Streich
15 § 103(a) Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, Streich, and McKeachnie
17–19 § 103(a) Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, Slup, and Streich
20 § 103(a) Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, Slup, Streich, and McKeachnie

IV. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that, based on a preponderance of the evidence, claims
1–20 of the ’413 patent are held unpatentable; and
IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

36
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a final written decision,
parties to this proceeding seeking judicial review of our decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2013-00231
Patent 8,079,413 B2

37
For PETITIONER:
Jason A. Engel
Robert M. Barrett
K&L Gates LLP
jason.engel@klgates.com
robert.barrett@klgates.com

For PATENT OWNER:
Robb D. Edmonds
N. Alexander Nolte
EDMONDS & NOLTE, P.C.
redmonds@edmondsnolte.com
anolte@edmondsnolte.com