Schott Gemtron Corporationv.SSW Holding Company, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 20, 2014

12562920 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 2014)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 106
571-272-7822 Entered: August 20, 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

SCHOTT GEMTRON CORPORATION,
Petitioner,

v.

SSW HOLDING COMPANY, INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2
____________

Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

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

IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

2
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
SCHOTT Gemtron Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed an Amended
Petition (Paper 5, “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1, 13, and
25 of U.S. Patent No. 8,286,561 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’561 patent”) pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19. SSW Holding Company, Inc. (“Patent Owner”)
filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 12, “Prelim. Resp.”). On November 4,
2013, we instituted this inter partes review of claims 1, 13, and 25 on two
grounds of unpatentability alleged in the Petition. Paper 14 (“Dec. to Inst.”).
After institution of review, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 46, “PO
Resp.”) to the Petition. Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 62 (confidential);
Paper 63 (public)) (“Reply”) to Patent Owner’s Response.
Counsel for both Petitioner and Patent Owner were present and
presented argument at an oral hearing held on June 23, 2014.1
The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). In this final
written decision, issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.73, we determine Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the
evidence that claims 1, 13, and 25 of the ’561 patent are unpatentable.
B. The ’561 Patent
The ’561 patent describes shelving, such as shelving adapted for use
in refrigerators and having a top surface with a hydrophobic surface

1 A transcript (“Trans.”) of the oral hearing is included in the record. Paper
105. Each party filed objections to the opposing party’s demonstrative
exhibits to be used at the oral hearing. See Papers 98, 101, 103. As none of
the objected-to demonstrative exhibits impact our analysis in this decision,
we decline to expunge any of these exhibits from the record. Thus, both
party’s objections are dismissed as moot.
IPR2
Paten

arran
1–4.
spill
exam
paten
with
patte
bord
area

013-0035
t 8,286,56
ged in a s
The spill
ed liquid f
ple of a sp
t, reprodu
Figure 3
a spill con
rn of a fra
er defines
therein. Id
Challeng
8
1 B2
pill contain
containme
rom spillin
ill contain
ced below
illustrates
tainment p
me-like bo
the bound
. at col. 3
ed claims
ment patt
nt pattern
g onto oth
ment patt
:
a preferre
attern con
rder. Id. a
aries of a s
, ll. 39–46
C. Ch
1, 13, and

3
ern. Ex. 1
is intende
er surface
ern is show
d embodim
sisting of
t col. 2, ll
ingle non-
.
allenged C
25 are rep
001, col. 1
d to act as
s. Id. at co
n in Figu

ent that i
a hydroph
. 26–30; c
hydropho
laims
roduced b
, ll. 15–18
a barrier t
l. 11, ll. 2
re 3 of the
ncludes sh
obic surfa
ol. 3, ll. 43
bic spill co
elow.
; col. 2, ll
o prevent
8–37. An
’561
elving
ce in the
–45. The
ntainmen
.

t
IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

4

1. A shelf assembly comprising:
a shelf panel having a generally flat top surface which is
capable of supporting articles which may be placed on
said shelf panel;
a hydrophobic surface applied in a spill containment pattern
on said top surface;
wherein the majority of the surface area of said top surface
of the shelf panel is not hydrophobic, thereby providing
one or more non-hydrophobic central portions bounded
by said spill containment pattern of said hydrophobic
surface.

13. The shelf assembly of claim 1, wherein the hydrophobic
surface comprises:
a ceramic frit layer adjacent to and bonded to the top
surface of said shelf panel; and
a hydrophobic compound coated over the ceramic frit layer.

25. A method of manufacturing a shelf capable of containing
liquid spills thereon comprising:
providing a panel having a generally flat top surface which
is capable of supporting articles which may be placed on
said panel;
applying a hydrophobic surface arranged in a spill
containment pattern generally in the plane of said top
surface;
leaving the majority of the surface area of said top surface
of the panel non-hydrophobic, thereby providing one or
more non-hydrophobic central portions bounded by the
spill containment pattern of the hydrophobic surface.

D. Prior Art References Alleged to Support Unpatentability
The following table summarizes the prior art references asserted in the
instituted grounds:

IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

5

Name Description Date Exhibit
Angros US 5,948,685 Sept. 7, 1999 Ex. 1005
Baumann US 6,872,441 B2 Mar. 29, 2005 Ex. 1007
Picken International Publ. No.
WO 2006/044641 A2
Apr. 27, 2006 Ex. 1009

E. Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability Instituted for Trial
The following table summarizes the challenges to patentability that
were instituted for inter partes review:
Reference(s) Basis Claim(s)
Challenged
Angros and Picken § 103(a) 1, 25
Angros, Picken, and Baumann § 103(a) 13

II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Interpretation
1. Prior Construed Claim Terms
In the Decision to Institute, we interpreted various claim terms of the
’561 patent as follows:
Term(s) Interpretation
“shelf panel” “a piece of material positioned horizontally at a
distance above some other surface to hold
objects”
IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

6
Term(s) Interpretation
“generally in the
plane of said top
surface”

“all or a portion of the hydrophobic surface
extending a small distance above the level of
the top surface of the shelf panel that is not
readily noticeable to the naked eye”
“majority of the
surface area of said
top surface of the
shelf panel is not
hydrophobic”
“the surface area of the non-hydrophobic
portion is greater than the surface area of the
hydrophobic portion”
“leaving the
majority of the
surface area of said
top surface of the
panel non-
hydrophobic”
“the surface area of the non-hydrophobic
portion is greater than the surface area of the
hydrophobic portion”
See Dec. to Inst. 6–9. During the course of the trial, neither party challenged
our construction of the claim terms. Thus, we see no reason to alter the
constructions set forth in the Decision to Institute and we incorporate our
previous analysis for purposes of this decision.
2. Presently Construed Claim Term: “spill”
Claim 1 recites a “hydrophobic surface applied in a spill containment
pattern.” Claim 25 recites a “method of manufacturing a shelf capable of
containing liquid spills thereon,” comprising “applying a hydrophobic
surface arranged in a spill containment pattern.” Although the Petition and
Patent Owner’s Response do not set forth a formal construction for the claim
term “spill,” given the arguments presented by the parties, we now
determine that a construction is necessary. In its Preliminary Response,
Patent Owner argued that the plain meaning of “spill” is “an accidental or
unintentional release of liquid.” Prelim. Resp. 15. According to Patent
IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

7
Owner, its position is supported by a dictionary definition of “spill,” which
is “to cause or allow esp[ecially] accidentally or unintentionally to fall, flow,
or run so as to be lost or wasted.” Id. at 15 (citing Merriam-Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary 1202 (11th ed. 2006)) (Ex. 2003). Patent Owner
contends that its proffered “plain meaning is also consistent with the ’561
Patent specification, which describes with reference to Fig. 3, for example,
one type of spill occurring when an open soda can is turned over onto its
side on the top surface of the shelf panel.” Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 11,
ll. 28–49). As Patent Owner explains, “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that this orientation of the opened soda can would be
unintentional because it is not generally desirable to spill soda in a
refrigerator.” Id.
Petitioner, however, argued at the oral hearing that the term “spill” is
not limited by the ’561 patent to encompass only unintended, sudden,
unexpected, or violent releases of liquid on a surface. Trans. 10:14–24,
18:9–12. Rather, according to Petitioner, “spill” in the context of the ’561
patent has a “very specific meaning,” which is merely “liquid being placed
on the surface.” Id. at 10:20–21. According to Petitioner, such an
interpretation of “spill” is supported by Examples 1–29 in the ’561 patent,
which describes the intentional and methodical pouring of liquid onto a
surface bounded by hydrophobic material. Id. at 11:1–11; Reply 1–2.
Petitioner’s position is unpersuasive. Contrary to Petitioner’s
characterization, Example 1 in the ’561 patent discloses only a
demonstration of water retention by a shelf with a hydrophobic border. See
Ex. 1001, col. 20, ll. 1–9. The patent recounts, in Example 1, a test to
determine the amount of water retainable on a shelf, within a hydrophobic
IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

8
border, without leakage. Id. Thus, Example 1 does not show that the term
“spill” merely means liquid placed on a surface. Therefore, we construe
“spill,” in accordance with its plain meaning and consistent with the
specification of the ’561 patent, to mean “an accidental or unintentional
release of liquid.” See Ex. 2003; Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 28–49 (describing
Figure 3 as illustrating “the concept that the hydrophobic surface 1030 will
form a spill containment barrier,” and using soda can 1026 turned on its side
as an example for “spilled liquid”).
B. Claims 1 and 25–Alleged Obviousness over Angros and Picken
Petitioner alleges that claims 1 and 25 of the ’561 patent are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Angros and Picken. Pet. 22–23,
33–34. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s position, arguing that Angros is
not analogous art and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
had reason to combine the references in the manner proposed by Petitioner.
PO Resp. 9–10.
As discussed below, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.
Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that claims 1 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Angros and
Picken.
1. Angros’s Disclosure
Angros describes an analytic plate, such as a microscope slide or a
diagnostic plate, having a containment border for containing a liquid. Ex.
1005, Abstract. Angros discloses that the containment border can be a
hydrophobic material applied to the plate surface in a bordered pattern to
confine liquid that is applied to the plate within the area surrounded by the
border. Id. at col. 1, ll. 45–48. According to Angros, the hydrophobic
IPR2
Paten

cont
with
surfa
Figu
Figu
col.
the u
migr
1B o
cont
that
subs
bord
is vi

Abst
013-0035
t 8,286,56
ainment bo
the surfac
ce of the s
re 1A of A
re 1A illus
2, ll. 39–4
pper surfa
ation of liq
f Angros i
Figure 1
ainment bo
“border 16
tantially fl
er 16 is, th
sible to the
2. Picke
Picken d
ract. Figu
8
1 B2
rder “is su
e of the sli
lide or pla
ngros is re
trates mic
5. Contain
ce 12 of sl
uid from
s reproduc
B illustrat
rder, top s
forms a m
ush (level)
erefore, no
naked ey
n’s Disclo
escribes a
re 1 of Pic
bstantially
de or plate
te.” Id. at
produced
roscope sl
ment bord
ide 10, an
containme
ed below:
es a side v
urface 12
olecular l
with the u
t raised ab
e.” Ex. 10
sure
shelf asse
ken is repr
9
transpare
[,] and [ ]
col. 1, l. 6
below:
ide 10 with
er 16 surr
d prevents
nt area 18

iew of an a
, and lowe
ayer when
pper surfa
ove the u
05, col. 3,
mbly for u
oduced be
nt and is s
covers on
7–col. 2, l

containm
ounds con
spreading
. Id. at col

nalytic pl
r surface 1
dry and th
ce 12 of t
pper surfa
ll. 3–7.
se in a ref
low:
ubstantial
ly a portio
. 3.
ent borde
tainment a
, leakage,
. 2, ll. 49–
ate with a
4. Angros
erefore is
he slide 10
ce 12 to a
rigerator.
ly flush
n of the
r 16. Id. a
rea 18 of
or
58. Figur
discloses

. The
degree tha
Ex. 1009,
t
e

t
IPR2
Paten

12 an
turne
liqui
repro
upw
discl
guar
surfa
013-0035
t 8,286,56
Figure 1
d a pair o
d, or bent
d over the
duced bel
Figure 1
ard to prov
osed by Pi
Figure 1
d 346—bo
ce 336 of
8
1 B2
illustrates
f support r
edge on th
edge of th
ow:
3 illustrate
ide a spill
cken is sh

7 illustrate
nded, via
shelf pane
shelf asse
ails 16. Id
e upper su
e shelf pan
s a shelf p
-proof edg
own in Fig
s shelf pan
adhesive 3
l 312—to
10
mbly 10 w
. The she
rface of th
el. Ex. 10
anel with
e. Id. ¶ 55
ure 17, re
el 312 tha
26, along
prevent liq
ith genera
lf panel m
e shelf to
09 ¶ 4. F
forward ed
. An alter
produced b

t includes
edge regio
uid move

lly flat sh
ay include
limit spill
igure 13 o
ge 120 th
native em
elow:
an upper
n 314 on u
ment. Id.
elf panel
a curved,
age of
f Picken is
at curves
bodiment
form or
pper
¶ 57. The

IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

11
shelf panel may include a frit layer2 on the upper or lower surfaces of the
panel. Id. ¶¶ 6, 57, 71.
3. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the
time it was made, 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires us to resolve the level of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham v.
John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). “The importance of determining the
level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining
objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950
F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “Instead of ascertaining what was
subjectively obvious to the inventor at the time of invention, [we] must
ascertain what would have been objectively obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at such time.” Id. Thus, “the level of ordinary skill in the art is a
factual question that must be resolved and considered.” Id.
a. Effective Filing Date of the ’561 Patent
In order for us to resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
at the time of the invention, we must determine the time of the claimed
invention. The ’561 patent was filed on September 18, 2009 and is a
continuation-in-part of Application No. PCT/US2009/048775, filed on June
2, 2009. The ’561 patent claims priority to two provisional applications:
U.S. Prov. App. No. 61/133,273 (“the ’273 provisional”), filed June 27,
2008; and U.S. Prov. App. No. 61/216,540 (“the ’540 provisional”), filed
May 18, 2009. Petitioner alleges that none of the claims of the ’561 patent

2 A frit layer is a substrate of glass or ceramic material that is placed or
printed in a pattern. Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 7–13. The material can include
finely ground particles. Id. at col. 6, ll. 41–59.
IPR2
Paten

are e
whic
prov
chall
cont
prov
appl
Ther
’273
level
prov
pane
top s
(citin
22).3
repro

3 Wh
prov
each
013-0035
t 8,286,56
ntitled to t
h the ’561
isional app
enged clai
entions. A
isional app
ications, su
efore, the
provision
of ordina
i.
Petitione
isional pro
l, and ther
urface,” a
g Ex. 100
We disag
duced bel
illustra

en referrin
isional (Ex
page.
8
1 B2
he benefit
patent cla
lications f
ms. Pet. 8
s discusse
lication, w
pports the
’561 paten
al applicat
ry skill in
Written d
r first con
vides any
efore, the
s recited in
2, pg. 33,
ree. Figu
ow:
Figure 44
tes a front

g to the ’2
. 1003), w
of the filin
ims priori
ail to prov
. We are
d in detail
hich is th
claim ele
t is entitle
ion, and th
the art is Ju
escription
tends that
explicit de
limitation
claims 1
l. 7–pg. 35
re 44 of th
of the ’27
view of a

73 provis
e refer to
12
g dates of
ty, because
ide suffici
not persua
below, we
e earlier fi
ments reci
d to the Ju
e relevant
ne 27, 20
support fo
neither the
scription
of a “shelf
and 13, is
, l. 22; Ex
e ’273 pro
3 provisio
shelf pane
ional appli
the page n
the provi
the writte
ent detail
ded by Pe
conclude
led of the
ted in clai
ne 27, 200
time perio
08.
r claims 1
’273 prov
of the top
panel hav
not suppor
. 1003, pg
visional ap
nal applic
l claimed
cation (Ex
umbers at
sional app
n descript
to support
titioner’s
that the ’2
two provis
ms 1, 13, a
8 filing da
d for reso
and 13
isional no
surface of
ing a gene
ted. Pet. 9
. 35, l. 7– p
plication

ation
in applicat
. 1002) an
the bottom
lications to
ions of the
the
73
ional
nd 25.
te of the
lving the
r the ’540
the shelf
rally flat
–10
g. 37, l.
is
ion
d the ’540
right of

IPR2
Paten

shelf
assem
hydr
pg. 2
and p
of th
pane
shelf
spec
uppe
[and
rim
seal
appl
liqui
013-0035
t 8,286,56
Figure 4
panel 102
bly 1020
ophobic m
9, ll. 8–11
revents th
In contra
e ’273 pro
illustr
Figure 4
l 1006 and
panel 100
ifically sta
r surface a
] may incl
1004 and p
spilled liqu
When Fi
ication, the
d moveme
8
1 B2
4 illustrate
4 of the cl
is charact
aterial aro
. The hyd
e liquid fr
st, a shelf
visional ap
Figure 42
ates a fron
2 is a fron
plastic rim
6. Id. at p
tes “the vi
t the inter
ude a seale
otentially
id from sp
gure 44 is
prior art
nt off shel
s a front,
aimed inv
erized as b
und the ou
rophobic m
om spillin
panel used
plication,
of the ’27
t view of
t, section v
1004. P
g. 28, ll. 1
sible edge
section of
d edge 10
sealed edg
illing off
compared
figure has
f panel 10
13
section vie
ention. Ex
eing treate
ter edges
aterial ac
g downwa
in the pri
reproduce
3 provisio
a shelf pan
iew of she
lastic rim
7–21. Th
of the she
the perime
14.” Id. at
e 1014, an
shelf pane
to Figure
plastic rim
06, while t
w of shelf
. 1002, Fi
d with a h
of shelf pa
ts as a bar
rd onto oth
or art is il
d below:
nal applic
el used in
lf assemb
1004 is us
e ’273 pro
lf panel 10
ter of the
pg. 29, ll
attempt i
l 1006. Id
42 of the
1004 that
he top sur
assembly
g. 44. She
ydrophob
nel 1024.
rier for sp
er surface
lustrated in
ation
the prior a
ly 1000 w
ed to enca
visional ap
06 is loca
plastic rim
. 1–6. Usi
s made to
.
’273 provi
is used to
face of she
1020 and
lf
ic or super
Id. at col.
illed liquid
s. Id.
Figure 42

rt
ith shelf
psulate
plication
ted on its
1004,
ng plastic
essentially
sional
prevent
lf panel

IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

14
1024 in Figure 44 does not have plastic rim 1004 and appears generally flat.
Furthermore, the ’273 provisional application states that “the hydrophobic or
super hydrophobic surface treatments in accordance with the invention
eliminate the need for any formed lips or ridges on the surface of the shelf
panel” (id. at pg. 31, ll. 15–17), “in accordance with the invention, it should
be noted that components such as a plastic rim (or even a frame) may be
completely unnecessary with the use of the hydrophobic surface treatment
1030” (id. at pg. 29, l. 22–30, l. 1), and “[w]ith the use of this surface
treatment in accordance with the invention, the need for plastic encapsulated
material (e.g., the plastic which provides for a spill proof barrier in prior art
systems) is eliminated” (id. at pg. 10, ll. 7–9). Therefore, we conclude that
the ’273 provisional application demonstrates support for the limitation,
“shelf panel having a generally flat top surface,” as recited in claims 1 and
13.
Petitioner next contends that neither the ’273 provisional application
nor the ’540 provisional application discloses a shelf panel where “the
majority of the surface area of said top surface of the shelf panel is not
hydrophobic,” and therefore, the limitation reciting the same in claims 1 and
13 is not supported. Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1002, pg. 33, l. 7–pg. 35, l. 22;
Ex. 1003, pg. 35, l. 7–pg. 37, l. 22). We disagree. The ’273 provisional
application states that in one embodiment, “the hydrophobic or super
hydrophobic surface treatment is employed only around the top surface
perimeter edge of the shelf panel 1024, for purposes of containing spills and
acting as a spill proof barrier.” Ex. 1002, pg. 30, ll. 4–7. This disclosure is
further supported by the illustration in Figure 43, where the hydrophobic
IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

15
surface treatment, indicated by diagonal hash marks, is denoted only around
the outer edge of shelf panel 1024. Id. at Fig. 43.
As construed above, the term “majority of the surface area of said top
surface of the shelf panel is not hydrophobic” means that “the surface area of
the non-hydrophobic portion is greater than the surface area of the
hydrophobic portion.” The disclosure that in one embodiment only the outer
perimeter edge is hydrophobic indicates that the entire inner portion of shelf
panel 1024 is not hydrophobic. As the inner portion of shelf panel 1024
appears to be a greater amount compared to the perimeter edge of shelf panel
1024, we conclude there is disclosure in the ’273 provisional application that
the majority of the surface area of said top surface of the shelf panel is not
hydrophobic. Therefore, the ’273 provisional application supports said
limitation in claims 1 and 13.
We have reviewed the ’273 provisional application and conclude that
it provides written description support for all other limitations of claims 1
and 13.
ii. Written description support for claim 25
Petitioner contends that neither the ’273 provisional application nor
the ’540 provisional application discloses any of the steps for manufacturing
a shelf as recited in claim 25. Pet. 11. We disagree. The ’273 provisional
application discloses: (1) multiple examples of applying a hydrophobic
surface treatment (Ex. 1002, pg. 10, ll. 1–4); (2) examples of spill
containment patterns (id. at pg. 9, ll. 16–23); (3) panels with generally flat
top surfaces (id. at pg. 29, ll. 8–11, Fig. 44); (4) the construction of shelving
assemblies (id. at pg. 11, l. 10–pg. 12, l. 9); and (5) leaving the majority of
the surface on a top surface of a panel non-hydrophobic so that one or more
IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

16
non-hydrophobic portions are bounded by hydrophobic surfaces (id. at pg. 9,
ll. 16–23; Figs. 43, 44).
Petitioner lastly contends that neither provisional application discloses
what is meant by “generally in the plane” of the top surface as recited in
claim 25. Pet. 11–12. We disagree. The ’273 provisional application
discloses that hydrophobic or super hydrophobic surface treatments in
accordance with the invention eliminate the need for any formed lips or
ridges on the surface of the shelf panel and that the relative amount of usable
shelf space is increased by eliminating the space taken up by plastic
encapsulation, sealants, adhesives, and formed lips and ridges. (Ex. 1002,
pg. 31, ll. 15–19.) This disclosure indicates that the hydrophobic treatment
does not create a lip or ridge that would use shelf space. Furthermore,
Figure 44 of the ’273 provisional application illustrates a front, section view
of shelf assembly 1020 and shelf panel 1024 of the claimed invention. Id. at
Fig. 44. Shelf assembly 1020 has a hydrophobic surface treatment around
the outer edges of shelf panel 1024. Id. at pg. 29, ll. 8–11. The hydrophobic
material is not visible in Figure 44. Therefore, we conclude that the ’273
provisional application teaches what is meant by “generally in the plane” of
the top surface as recited in claim 25.
We have reviewed the ’273 provisional application and conclude that
it provides written description support for all other limitations of claim 25.
b. Determination of the Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Having determined the appropriate time of the invention (June 27,
2008), we turn to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art at that
time. Petitioner’s witness, Mr. Chris B. Schechter, submitted a declaration
in support of the Petition. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1010). In his declaration,
IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

17
Mr. Schechter testified that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to
the ’561 patent “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical
engineering and at least four years of experience designing and
manufacturing shelf assemblies or equivalent education and training.” Ex.
1010 ¶ 4. Patent Owner’s witness, Mr. Richard Bruce Mills, defined a
person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’561 patent to be a person
with at least an associate’s or bachelor’s degree and three years of
experience working with shelf assemblies, and having familiarity with
“encapsulated spill containing refrigerator shelves.” Ex. 2022 ¶ 8. Based on
our review of the ’561 patent, the types of problems and solutions described
in the ’561 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of the parties’
declarants, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the claimed invention (i.e., as of June 27, 2008, as discussed above in
Section II.B.3.a.) would have had a degree in mechanical engineering or a
similar discipline, and at least three years of work experience with
refrigerator shelf assemblies. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 16–62 (stating
that the ’561 patent relates to “shelving which may be adapted for use with
refrigerators,” and describing conventional refrigerator shelf assemblies that
use plastic molded parts to encapsulate shelves and silicone sealants to form
physical spill containment barriers around the perimeter of the refrigerator
shelving); Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 1–2 (describing the background of Mr. Schechter);
Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 3–5 (describing the background of Mr. Mills).
We note that under this standard, Petitioner’s witness, Mr. Schechter,
does not qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art. Although
Mr. Schechter has a Master’s of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering,
he has only worked as an engineer designing and manufacturing shelf
IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

18
assemblies since December 2011. Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 1-2. Thus, Mr. Schechter
had less than two years of experience when he signed his declaration on June
14, 2013. Id. ¶ 36. Furthermore, Mr. Schechter was not a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’561 patent (i.e.,
June 27, 2008). Indeed, at his deposition, Mr. Schechter testified that he
does not qualify as one of ordinary skill in the art under the definition in his
declaration. Ex. 1011, 26:2–13. In this case, we accord the testimony of
Mr. Schechter regarding the alleged obviousness of the claims less weight
because he was not a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention disclosed in the ’561 patent.
4. Obviousness Analysis
To prevail in its challenges to the patentability of the claims,
Petitioner must establish facts supporting its challenges by a preponderance
of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). The primary
dispositive fact Petitioner must establish is that Angros is analogous art to
the claimed invention. A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if
the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented 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). A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness
determination under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed
invention. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Innovention
Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re
Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

19
A reference is considered analogous prior art: (1) if the reference is
from the same field of endeavor as the claimed subjected matter, regardless
of the problem addressed, or (2) if “the reference still is reasonably pertinent
to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved,” even though
the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. Bigio, 381
F.3d at 1325. The “field of endeavor” test asks if the structure and function
of the prior art is such that it would be considered by a person of ordinary
skill in the art, because of the similarity to the structure and function of the
claimed invention as disclosed in the application. Id. at 1325-27. It is
necessary to apply “common sense” in “deciding in which fields a person of
ordinary skill would reasonably be expected to look for a solution to the
problem facing the inventor.” Id. at 1326 (citations and quotation marks
omitted). As to the “reasonably pertinent” test:
A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in
a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one
which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically
would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in
considering his problem. Thus, the purposes of both the
invention and the prior art are important in determining whether
the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem the
invention attempts to solve. If a reference disclosure has the
same purpose as the claimed invention, the reference relates to
the same problem, and that fact supports use of that reference in
an obviousness rejection. An inventor may well have been
motivated to consider the reference when making his invention.
If it is directed to a different purpose, the inventor would
accordingly have had less motivation or occasion to consider it.
In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 659.
The parties do not dispute that Angros’ disclosure regarding
microscope slides is not in the same “field of endeavor” as the ’561 patent,
which relates to refrigerator shelves. Pet. 21–22; PO Resp. 16; Reply 1;
IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

20
Trans. 23:8–15, 32:10–14.
Rather, Petitioner contends Angros is analogous art to the claimed
invention, because “Angros is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by
the Applicants of the ’561 patent.” Pet. 22. Specifically, Petitioner states
that “[t]he problem faced by the Angros inventors was the same as the
problem faced by [Patent Owner], namely, how to contain a liquid in a
predetermined area using a structure that is thin and does not extend
significantly above the top surface of the panel.” Id.
Patent Owner disputes that Angros is reasonably pertinent to the
problem addressed by the claimed invention, because Angros does not teach
containing “spills.” PO Resp. 16. According to Patent Owner, the problem
faced by the inventors of the ’561 patent was not simply how to contain
liquids in a predetermined area–it was how to maximize the available
storage space on shelves while containing accidental and unpredictable
spills. Id. (citing Ex. 2022 ¶ 30(b)) (emphasis added). Mr. Mills, a former
employee of Whirlpool Corporation and witness for Patent Owner, testified
that “the hydrophobic border in Angros is not being used to contain spills or
to otherwise provide a spill resistant barrier, which is the problem being
addressed by the [’]561 patent.” Ex. 2022 ¶ 30(b).
Petitioner, however, argues that the term “spill” is not limited by the
’561 patent to encompass only unintended, sudden, unexpected, or violent
releases of liquid on a surface. Trans. 10:14–24, 18:9–12. Petitioner’s
argument is unpersuasive in light of our claim construction of the term
“spill.” As discussed above in Section II.A.2, we construed “spill” to mean
“an accidental or unintentional release of liquid.”

IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

21
Petitioner further argues “Patent Owner is trying to read too much into
the concept of spill,” because the ’561 patent does not claim “spill
containment.” Reply 1–2; Trans. 18:9–23. Although the claims do not
recite a limitation for maximizing shelf space, the claims do require a “spill
containment” pattern. Such a requirement indicates the claims are directed
not merely to liquid containment, but to “spill containment.” Angros,
however, is directed to the containment of miniscule amounts of liquids that
are intentionally placed on a microscope slide. Petitioner’s argument
regarding a “spill” encompassing a “slowly and carefully” poured liquid
(Reply 1–2) fails to address sufficiently Patent Owner’s argument that the
problem pertinent to the inventors of the ’561 patent is “not simply how to
contain liquids in a predetermined area – it was how to maximize the
available storage space . . . while containing accidental and unpredictable
spills.” PO Resp. 16–17 (emphasis added).
Patent Owner’s position is supported by the testimony of Mr. Mills as
well as the disclosure of the ’561 patent itself. See, e.g., Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 26–33;
Ex. 1001, Abstract (“a method for containing spills on shelving and the
like”); col. 1, l. 24–col. 2, l. 14 (describing prior art shelves and the objects
of the disclosed “method for containing spills on shelving and the like”); col.
11, ll. 44–49 (“[C]omponents such as a plastic rim (or even a frame) may be
completely unnecessary with the use of the hydrophobic surface 1030 to
provide the spill containment feature. As such, the shelf assembly 1020
depicted in FIGS. 3 and 4 maximizes the available useful shelf space since it
does not include a plastic rim, a frame, or any other physical barrier or dam
extending above the top surface 1023 of the shelf panel 1024 for preventing
liquids from spilling off of the shelf panel 1024.”); col. 13, ll. 51–56.
IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

22
Therefore, we agree with Patent Owner’s representation of the problem
being addressed by the ’561 patent. Specifically, we determine that the
hydrophobic spill-containment perimeter on refrigerator shelves of the ’561
patent is designed to contain accidentally spilled liquid and thereby
maximize available storage space, whereas the microscope slides of Angros
are designed to contain miniscule amounts of intentionally placed liquid.
Patent Owner also disputes that Angros is analogous art to the claimed
invention, arguing that a person having ordinary skill in the art of the ’561
patent would not have considered Angros’ microscope slides when
developing a spill-containing shelf for refrigerators, freezers, pantries, etc.
PO Resp. at 14–16; Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 30–33. According to Patent Owner’s
declarant, Mr. Mills, a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’561 patent
would not have been familiar with microscope slides and would not have
considered them a design resource. Ex. 2022 ¶ 26.
Mr. Schechter, an employee of, and witness for, Petitioner,
corroborates the testimony of Mr. Mills. Ex. 1011, 79:4–113:2. Mr.
Schechter testified that during the course of his work for Petitioner, he
familiarized himself with the state of the art by reviewing “patents focused
primarily on the consumer appliance industry” (id. at 78:19–79:15) and
occasionally reviewed technical publications, technical data sheets, and
manuals for production equipment (id. at 79:16–81:1). Mr. Schechter,
however, testified that microscope slides are not something with which he
works in his work for Petitioner, and could not recall any instance where he
reviewed patents or publications (other than Angros) related to microscopes.
PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 1011, 112:12–113:2). In fact, Mr. Schechter
testified he did not find Angros during a prior art search; rather, it was given
IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

23
to him by legal counsel. Ex. 1011, 92:1–4. We credit the testimony of both
Mr. Schechter and Mr. Mills. We also note that unlike Patent Owner’s
citation to Mr. Mills’ testimony, Petitioner does not cite any testimony (from
Mr. Schechter or otherwise) stating that Angros is analogous art to the ’561
patent or explaining why that would be the case. Thus, based on the
evidence of record, we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art of
the ’561 patent would not have considered the subject matter of Angros,
which deals with microscope slides, to be reasonably pertinent to the
problem being addressed by the applicants of the ’561 patent in designing
refrigerator shelves. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown Angros to be prior
art under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In addition, even if Angros did qualify as prior art, Petitioner has not
shown that the combination of Angros with Picken would have rendered
claims 1 and 25 obvious. Petitioner argues it would have been obvious to
one of skill in the art to modify the shelf panel, as taught by Picken, with the
hydrophobic liquid containment barrier, as taught by Angros, because “the
application of the spill-containment border of Angros to the shelf assembly
of Picken is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions.” Pet. 22–23 (citing KSR Int’l Co.,
550 U.S. at 417). According to Petitioner, merely substituting one element
(e.g., guard 346 of Picken) for another element known in the field
(hydrophobic containment border of Angros) would have been obvious to
one of skill in the art and it would have been expected to yield predictable
results. Id.
Petitioner relies on testimony from Patent Owner’s declarant,
Mr. Mills, to allegedly establish that “scaling up” and substituting elements
IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

24
from a microscope slide to a refrigerator shelf would have been obvious and
easily performed by those in the field. Reply 2; Trans. 14:1–11, 24:16–
25:23; Ex. 1017, 248–249. We are not persuaded Mr. Mills made the
admission that Petitioner argues. The questions Petitioner cites appear to be
directed to (1) whether a frit layer would make a hydrophobic surface work
better, and (2) if, hypothetically, a microscope were scaled up, whether it
would retain liquid. Trans. 14:1–11; Ex. 1017, 248–249.
We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the application of
Angros’ spill-containment border is merely the predictable use of prior art
elements, because we do not find Angros to be analogous art to Picken.
Although it may be obvious for one of skill in the art to “[make a] simple
substitution of one known element for another” (KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at
417), the element must be familiar or known to the person of ordinary skill
in the art to be used in the substitution. Based on the testimony of record,
we do not find that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’561 patent
would be familiar with items related to microscope slides.
Furthermore, a patent claim “is not proved obvious merely by
demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the
prior art.” KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 419. “Rather, obviousness requires the
additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention
would have selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal
course of research and development to yield the claimed invention.”
Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(citing KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 421). For an obviousness analysis, “it can
be important to identify a reason that would have prompted one of skill in
the art to combine prior art elements in the way the claimed invention does.”
IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

25
KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 419. In that regard, Mr. Schechter, witness for
Petitioner, testified that Angros and Picken were known in the art and that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the
teachings of the prior art so as to make a design that (i) was more simple or
clean or aesthetically pleasing and (ii) had a less obtrusive hydrophobic
barrier. Ex. 2048, 226:15–227:8; Ex. 1010 ¶ 28. He then concluded that
one of ordinary skill would know how to substitute the spill-contain border
in Angros for the plastic guard in Picken. Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 28–29.
Mr. Schechter, however, does not explain sufficiently why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would look to the field of microscope slides to find a
hydrophobic coating to act as a less obtrusive spill containment border in
place of the plastic rim in Picken. Mr. Schechter’s testimony is
impermissible hindsight; he opined that all of the elements of the claims
disparately existed in the prior art, but fails to provide sufficient reason for
why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have
combined these references. See, e.g., InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO
Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding expert
testimony to be impermissible hindsight for failing to explaining what
reason or motivation one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention would have had to place the prior art together).
In an obviousness determination, we must avoid analyzing the prior
art through the prism of hindsight. Instead, we must “cast our minds back to
the time the invention was made (often, as here, many years), to occupy the
mind of one skilled in the art who is presented only with the references, and
who is normally guided by the then–accepted wisdom in the art.” W.L. Gore
& Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

26
Petitioner attempts to imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge
of the claimed invention, when no prior art reference or references of record
convey or suggest that knowledge. Rather, Petitioner’s argument that
Angros is analogous art and that Angros is combinable with Pickens appears
to be premised on Petitioner’s knowledge of the ’561 patent disclosure.
Petitioner bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of
evidence that the asserted prior art references are analogous art and
otherwise combinable. On the record before us, we find that Petitioner has
not shown that Angros qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or that,
even if it did, it renders the claims unpatentable in combination with Picken.
Therefore, we conclude Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance
of evidence that claims 1 and 25 of the ’561 patent would have been obvious
in view of Angros and Picken.
C. Claim 13 – Alleged Obviousness over Angros, Picken, and Baumann
Petitioner alleges that claim 13 of the ’561 patent is unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over (i) Angros and Baumann and (ii) Picken and
Baumann. Pet. 51. Although Petitioner in its Petition did not allege,
expressly, unpatentability of claim 13 based on the combination of all three
references (Angros, Picken, and Baumann), we determined, in our Decision
to Institute, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) that the information presented in the
Petition showed a reasonable likelihood that claim 13 would have been
obvious based on the combination of Angros, Picken, and Baumann, and
instituted a trial on that ground. Dec. to Inst. 15–17.
Patent Owner disputes this ground, arguing that Baumann is non-
analogous art to the claimed invention and cannot be used to establish
obviousness. PO Resp. 21.
IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

27
As discussed above, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s reasoning
regarding Angros being non-analogous art; thus, Angros cannot be used in
combination with other references (including Baumann) to support a
showing of obviousness. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 13 is unpatentable as
obvious over Angros, Picken, and Baumann.
1. Baumann’s Disclosure
Baumann describes substrates with at least one structured
hydrophobic substrate that “provides a good self-cleaning effect.” Ex. 1007,
col. 1, ll. 9–11. In one embodiment disclosed by Baumann, the substrate is a
ceramic material that is coated with “a composition containing a material
producing a glass flux such as a glass frit and structure-forming particles”
and that, when the “substrate” is fired at a certain temperature, the glass flux
is made hydrophobic. Id. at col. 2, ll. 32–39. Baumann further discloses a
micro-rough layer [that] is printed by means of a printing paste
containing a glass frit which forms a glass flux, and the
structure-forming particles are applied to the still moist printing
surface for example by powdering or dripping on, possibly
followed by partial pressing of the particles into the printed
surface.
Id. at col. 6, ll. 1–8. “The substrate thus treated is then burnt and made
hydrophobic in a known manner.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 6–8.
2. Angros’s and Picken’s Disclosures
The disclosure of Angros and Pickens are discussed in detail above in
Sections II.B.1. and II.B.2.
3. Analysis
Claim 13 depends from claim 1, and in addition to the elements
recited in claim 1, claim 13 requires (a) a ceramic frit layer adjacent to and
IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

28
bonded to the top surface of a shelf panel and (b) a hydrophobic compound
coated over the ceramic frit layer.
Petitioner contends that ceramic frits coated with hydrophobic
surfaces were well known in the art at the time the ’561 patent was filed.
Pet. 27. Indeed, the ’561 patent cites to Baumann as disclosing a ceramic
frit. Id.; see Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 36–41. According to Petitioner, the
application of a hydrophobic surface comprising a ceramic frit and a
hydrophobic compound, as described in Baumann, to form a spill-
containment border, as described in Angros, would be the predictable use of
prior art elements according to their established functions. Pet. at 28 (citing
KSR Int’l. Co., 550 U.S. at 417). Petitioner then contends that, if the border
described in Picken was substituted with the hydrophobic surfaces described
in Baumann, a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the shelf
assembly of claim 13 would result. Pet. 28–29 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 35).
Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s position, asserting that Baumann is
non-analogous art that is neither from the same field of endeavor as the ’561
patent, nor is it “reasonably pertinent” to the problem faced by the inventors
of the ’561 patent. PO Resp. 22. According to Patent Owner, Baumann is
directed to self-cleaning substrates suitable “for glazing vehicles and trains
and for glass bricks,” as well as “building material such as roof tiles, clinker
and floor tiles.” Ex. 1007, col. 6, l. 62–col. 7, l. 3. Thus, Patent Owner
concludes Baumann is in a different field of endeavor from the ’561 patent,
which is directed to refrigerator shelves. PO Resp. 22.
Patent Owner also contends that Baumann is non-analogous art,
because it is directed to a much different problem than that faced by the
inventors of the ’561 patent. Specifically, Patent Owner characterizes
IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

29
Baumann as providing a substrate that eliminates water and dirt that may
otherwise collect thereon. PO Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 37–38; Ex. 1007,
col. 2, l. 64–col. 3, l. 1). According to Patent Owner, Baumann’s intended
objective is directly opposite that of the ’561 patent, which is to contain
spills, not to eliminate them from the shelf. PO Resp. 23.
In the Decision to Institute, we instituted on the combination of
Angros, Picken, and Baumann (Dec. to Inst. 15–17), because the
combination of Picken and Baumann lacks a suggestion to create a
hydrophobic barrier wherein the majority of the top surface of shelving
assembly is not hydrophobic. We further found a reasonable likelihood that
the feature is taught by the combination of Angros’s rectangular
hydrophobic surface and Picken’s shelf structure. Id. at 12–14. The
hydrophobic coating disclosed in Baumann is designed to coat an entire top
surface of an article to create a self-cleaning surface that facilitates liquid
run-off. Ex. 1007, col. 2, l. 64–col. 3, l. 1. Based on the disclosure in
Baumann, we conclude that the combination of Picken and Baumann would
result in a refrigerator shelf, as disclosed in Picken, with its entire top
surface treated with Baumann’s self-cleaning coating. The raised form
would remain, because there is no suggestion that the coating of Baumann
could perform spill containment. Therefore, Petitioner can rely only on the
disclosure in Angros for a hydrophobic barrier that would not coat the entire
top surface of a shelving assembly.
As discussed in detail above, however, we already have concluded
that Petitioner has not shown Angros to be reasonably pertinent to the
problem addressed by the challenged claims. Such a deficiency defeats
Petitioner’s obviousness challenge as to claim 13 and is not remedied by the
IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

30
combination of Angros, Picken, and Baumann. Therefore, we determine
Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
claim 13 of the ’561 patent would have been obvious over Angros, Picken,
and Baumann.
D. Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness
Patent Owner contends Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of
showing unpatentability, because objective indicia of nonobviousness
indicate that the claimed subject matter would not have been obvious. PO
Resp. 31–43; Trans. 29. As discussed above, we have found Angros to be
non-analogous and not combinable with the other references. Thus, we need
not address Patent Owner’s evidence regarding secondary considerations of
non-obviousness.
E. Motion to Exclude
Petitioner moves to exclude the following evidence submitted by
Patent Owner in this proceeding: Exhibits 2006–16, 2025, 2034–39, 2042–
46, 2049–51, 2053, 2020 (¶¶ 12–17, 19–22, and 25–39), and 2022 (¶¶ 17–
21). Papers 86 (confidential), 87 (public). Patent Owner filed an opposition
(Paper 90 (confidential); Paper 91 (public)), and Petitioner filed a reply
(Paper 94 (confidential); Paper 95 (public)). All of the evidence sought to
be excluded by Petitioner pertains to Patent Owner’s assertions of secondary
considerations of non-obviousness. Because we need not reach that issue,
for the reasons explained above, Petitioner’s motion is dismissed as moot.

IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

31
III. CONCLUSION
We have considered the record before us in this inter partes review
proceeding. We conclude Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of
the evidence that:
(1) The subject matter of claims 1 and 25 of the ’561 patent is
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the teachings of Angros and
Picken; and
(2) The subject matter of claim 13 of the ’561 patent is unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the teachings of Angros, Picken, and
Baumann.
IV. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is hereby:
ORDERED that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that claims 1, 13, and 25 of the ’561 patent are unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to exclude (Paper 86
(confidential); Paper 87 (public)) is dismissed;
FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s objections (Paper 98, 103)
and Patent Owner’s objections (Paper 101) to the opposing party’s
demonstrative exhibits to be used at the oral hearing are dismissed; and
FURTHER ORDERED that because this is a final written decision,
parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
Certain materials have been sealed in this proceeding, but have not
been relied upon in this final written decision. See Papers 76, 97. The
record will be maintained undisturbed pending the outcome of any appeal
taken from this decision. At the conclusion of any appeal proceeding, or if
IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

32
no appeal is taken, the materials will be made public. See Office Patent
Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760-61 (Aug. 14, 2012).
Further, either party may file a motion to expunge the sealed materials from
the record pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.56. Any such motion will be decided
after the conclusion of any appeal proceeding or the expiration of the time
period for appealing.

IPR2013-00358
Patent 8,286,561 B2

33
For PETITIONER:

Marshall J. Schmitt
Gilberto E. Espinoza
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP
mjschmitt@michaelbest.com
geespinoza@michaelbest.com

Oliver A. Zitzmann
SCHOTT CORPORATION
oliver.zitzmann@us.schott.com

PATENT OWNER:

Michael P. Furmanek
Jennifer Burnette
Michael R. Weiner
MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP
mfurmanek@marshallip.com
jburnette@marshallip.com
mweiner@marshallip.com

Nathaniel L. Dilger
ONE LLP
ndilger@onellp.com