10X Genomics, Inc.v.the University of Chicago

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 16, 2015

13563347 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 14
571.272.7822 Entered: November 16, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

10X GENOMICS, INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2015-01156
Patent 8,822,148 B2
____________

Before DONNA M. PRAISS, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
TINA E. HULSE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRUMBLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108

IPR2015-01156
Patent 8,822,148 B2
2

INTRODUCTION I.
10X Genomics, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an
inter partes review of claims 1–8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,822,148 B2
(Ex. 1001, “the ’148 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). The University of
Chicago (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response to the
Petition. Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides
that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a
reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to
at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C.
§ 314(a). Upon considering the Petition and Preliminary Response,
we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable
likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of
claims 1–8. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes
review of those claims.
A. Related Proceedings
Petitioner identifies as a related matter RainDance Techs., Inc.
v. 10X Genomics, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-00152-RGA (D. Del.). Pet. 53.
Petitioner also concurrently filed petitions for inter partes
review of related patents in IPR2015-01163 (US 8,304,193),
IPR2015-01162 (US 8,273,573), IPR2015-01158 (US 8,329,407), and
IPR2015-01157 (US 8,889,083).
B. The ’148 Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’148 patent, entitled “Method of Performing PCR Reaction
in Continuously Flowing Microfluidic Plugs,” issued September 2,
2014. Ex. 1001, (45), (54). Microfluidic systems transport fluids
IPR2015-01156
Patent 8,822,148 B2
3
through networks of channels, typically having micrometer
dimensions. Id. at 1:18–20. According to the specification, the main
advantages of microfluidic systems are high speed and low
consumption of reagents. Id. at 1:23–25. The microfluidic systems
may be used for various chemical and biochemical processes,
including autocatalytic reactions, such as the polymerase chain
reaction. Id. at 44:38–61.
Rather than rely on laminar flow of liquids through microfluidic
channels, the ’148 patent specification describes using microfluidic
droplets, or “plugs” in the system. Figure 2A-2, an embodiment of
the system, is annotated and reproduced below:

Figure 2A-2 depicts the formation of plugs, where the aqueous fluid
containing a substrate and reagents enters a channel with an
immiscible carrier fluid, such as an oil, to form a series of plugs. Id.
at 17:37–41. The plug volumes, which are dependent on channel size,
can range from about 1 femtoliter to about 250 nanoliters. Id. at
19:45–54.

IPR2015-01156
Patent 8,822,148 B2
4
C. Illustrative Claim
Petitioner challenges claims 1–8 of the ’148 patent. Claim 1,
the sole independent claim, is illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising the steps of:
providing a microfluidic system comprising one or more
channels;
providing within the one or more channels a continuously
flowing carrier fluid comprising an oil and a
continuously flowing aqueous fluid comprising target
DNA or RNA molecules and at least one other
molecule in the fluid that can react with the target
DNA or RNA molecules under conditions in which
the target DNA or RNA molecules and the other
molecules in the fluid do not react with each other;
controlling flow rates of said aqueous fluid and said
carrier fluid to partition the continuously flowing
aqueous fluid with the continuously flowing carrier
fluid to form a plurality of plugs of the aqueous fluid,
each having a substantially uniform size of about 200
µm or less, wherein the target DNA or RNA in said
plurality of plugs represents a Poisson distribution,
and at least one member of said plurality comprises a
single target DNA or RNA molecule and at least one
of the other molecules that can react with the target
DNA or RNA molecule; and
providing conditions suitable for a polymerase-chain
reaction in at least one plug of the plurality of plugs
such that the target DNA or RNA is amplified.
IPR2015-01156
Patent 8,822,148 B2
5
D. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–8 of the ’148
patent on the following grounds:
References Basis Claims challenged
Haff1 and Quake2 § 103 1–8
Haff, Quake, and Ramsey3 § 103 6
Petitioner asserts that Haff is prior art to the ’148 patent under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), while Quake and Ramsey are prior art under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 18, 44. Patent Owner does not contest the prior
art status of any of the references in its Preliminary Response.
ANALYSIS II.
A. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
The parties dispute the proper definition of a person of ordinary
skill in the art. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have had a Ph.D. in chemistry, biochemistry,
mechanical engineering, or a related discipline, with two years of
experience in using, designing or creating microfluidic devices. Pet.
2–3. Alternatively, Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have
had an M.S. or bachelor’s degree in one of those disciplines with four
or five years of additional relevant experience, respectively. Id.
Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s definition, arguing that
Petitioner overstates the level of ordinary skill in the art in the 2002

1 Haff et al., US 6,033,880, issued Mar. 7, 2000 (Ex. 1021).
2 Quake et al., US 2002/0058332 A1, published May 16, 2002 (Ex.
1004).
3 Ramsey et al., US 6,524,456 B1, issued Feb. 25, 2003 (Ex. 1006).
IPR2015-01156
Patent 8,822,148 B2
6
time frame. According to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have been a researcher interested in microfluidics with
at least a bachelor’s degree in a “hard science,” such as chemistry,
physics, chemical engineering, bioengineering, or mechanical
engineering. Prelim. Resp. 15–17.
For purposes of this Decision, we do not discern an appreciable
difference between Petitioner and Patent Owner’s proposed levels of
ordinary skill in the art that would impact our ultimate conclusions.
Patent Owner does not indicate how many years of experience a
“researcher interested in microfluidics” would have. Accordingly, we
determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least
a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, physics, chemical engineering,
bioengineering, or mechanical engineering, or a related discipline,
with at least four or five years of relevant experience. We also
consider the cited prior art as representative of the level of ordinary
skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
Cir. 2001) (finding the absence of specific findings on “level of skill
in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art
itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not
shown’”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp.,
755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
B. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, the Board interprets claim terms in an
unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable construction in
light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See In re
Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1276–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, and absent any special
IPR2015-01156
Patent 8,822,148 B2
7
definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary
meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms
must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
1. “plugs of the aqueous fluid”
Claim 1 requires forming “plugs of the aqueous fluid.”
Petitioner asserts that the broadest reasonable interpretation of this
term is “volumes of an aqueous fluid surrounded by a carrier fluid in
which it is substantially immiscible, such as a non-polar or
hydrophobic fluid, e.g., an oil, and the diameter of a plug is
substantially similar to the cross-section of the channel in which it is
formed and the aqueous fluid is separated from the channel by a thin
film of carrier fluid.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner disagrees, asserting that
the term should be construed to mean “volumes of aqueous fluid
formed when a stream of aqueous fluid is introduced into the flow of a
substantially immiscible carrier-fluid.” Prelim. Resp. 20.
At this stage of the proceeding, we find Patent Owner’s
proposed construction more persuasive because it is more consistent
with the specification’s definition of “plugs.” The specification states:
“‘Plugs’ in accordance with the present invention are formed in a
substrate when a stream of at least one plug-fluid is introduced into
the flow of a carrier-fluid in which it is substantially immiscible.” Ex.
1001, 9:27–30. To further limit the claim term, Petitioner relies on
the specification’s disclosure of other optional characteristics of a
plug. For example, the specification states that the plug’s “cross-
IPR2015-01156
Patent 8,822,148 B2
8
section should be substantially similar to the cross-section of the
channels in which they are formed.” Id. at 9:34–37 (emphasis added).
The specification also states that the carrier fluid “preferably” wets the
walls of the channels and, “[i]f this condition is satisfied, the plug . . .
remains separated from the walls by a thin layer of the carrier-fluid.”
Id. at 20:59–63 (emphasis added). Because neither of these
disclosures expressly limits the “plugs” of the claimed invention, we
decline to include these limitations from the specification in the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term.
Accordingly, on the current record, we determine the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the term “plugs of the aqueous fluid” to
be “volumes of aqueous fluid formed when a stream of aqueous fluid
is introduced into the flow of a substantially immiscible carrier-fluid.”
2. “conditions suitable for a polymerase-chain
reaction in at least one plug of the plurality of plugs
such that the target DNA or RNA is amplified”
Claim 1 recites “providing conditions suitable for a
polymerase-chain reaction in at least one plug of the plurality of plugs
such that the target DNA or RNA is amplified.” Petitioner asserts that
this limitation “would encompass repeatedly adjusting the temperature
of a plug so that PCR amplification can take place, such as by
providing heat.” Pet. 17. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s
construction to the extent that it simply requires a single stimulus to
induce an autocatalytic reaction (regardless of whether that stimulus is
sufficient to induce the reaction). Prelim. Resp. 21. According to
Patent Owner, a skilled artisan would understand that the term refers
IPR2015-01156
Patent 8,822,148 B2
9
“to a global set of physical and chemical conditions that allows one to
conduct PCR in droplets.” Id.
At this stage of the proceeding, we determine that Patent
Owner’s interpretation is more consistent with the plain and ordinary
meaning of the claim term, which requires more than a single stimulus
to induce a reaction. We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument
that the specification sets forth certain conditions that must be
addressed when conducting PCR in a microfluidic droplet, including
unwanted adsorption of proteins on the surface of the droplet. Prelim.
Resp. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1001, 35:58–66). Accordingly, we construe
the claim term as requiring conditions that allow the substrate
molecule to be amplified in a microfluidic system.
3. Remaining Claim Terms
Petitioner proposes constructions for other claim terms of the
’148 patent. Based on the current record, however, we determine that
the remaining claim terms need not be construed explicitly for
purposes of this Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g,
Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only terms in controversy
need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
controversy).
C. Obviousness over Haff and Quake
Petitioner asserts that claims 1–8 are unpatentable as having
been obvious over Haff and Quake. Pet. 19–44. Petitioner relies on
the testimony of its declarant, Wilhelm T. S. Huck, Ph.D. (Ex. 1002).
Patent Owner opposes Petitioner’s assertion. Prelim. Resp. 26–47.
Based on the current record, we determine that Petitioner has not
established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
IPR2015-01156
Patent 8,822,148 B2
10
the claims are unpatentable as having been obvious over the cited
references.
1. Haff (Ex. 1021)
Haff relates to automated machines for performing
amplification reactions for nucleic acids, such as a polymerase chain
reaction (“PCR”). Ex. 1021, 1:12–15. Haff states that PCR has been
performed in disposable reaction tubes such as small, plastic
microcentrifuge tubes or test tubes that are placed in an instrument
containing a thermally controlled heat exchanger. Id. at 1:50–53.
Haff explains that rapid, small-scale PCR capillary tube instruments
have appeared in which the reaction mixture is placed in capillary
tubes. Id. at 2:7–12. The specification describes various capillary
tube PCR instruments that use different means to heat and cool the
PCR reaction mixture and different tube and fluid-handling means to
move the reaction mixture.
Figure 2 of Haff is one embodiment and is reproduced below:

IPR2015-01156
Patent 8,822,148 B2
11
Figure 2 depicts a system that uses a length of capillary tubing 50 that
is routed in and out of hot zone 52 and cool zone 54 a number of
times. Id. at 9:58–65. Syringe 51, which contains PCR reaction
mixture 53, and syringe 55, which contains air or an immiscible fluid,
are connected in parallel with tubing 50. Ex. 1021, 10:20–32.
Syringe 55 is operated intermittently to inject air bubbles or
immiscible fluid bubbles into the flow stream of reagent mixture 53 in
tubing 50. Id. at 10:32–35. The use of bubbles between samples
results in “slug” flow where sample “slugs” are passed through the
capillary tubes. Id. at 9:50–52. According to Haff, “[th]e length of
the tubing 50, its internal diameter, the length of tubing in each of the
hot and cool zones, and the flow rate of the reaction mixture inside the
tube are all factors in the control of the amplification.” Id. at 10:15–
19.
2. Quake (Ex. 1004)
Quake relates to microfluidic devices and methods for
analyzing and/or sorting biological materials. Ex. 1004, Abstract.
Quake states that its device and methods “offer several advantages
over traditional flow cytometry devices and methods.” Id. ¶ 14.
Quake’s devices are designed to compartmentalize small droplets of
aqueous solution within microfluidic channels filled with oil. Id. ¶ 3.
The devices comprise a main channel, through which a pressurized
stream of oil is passed, and at least one sample inlet channel, through
which a pressurized stream of aqueous solution is passed. Id. A
junction joins the main channel with the sample inlet channel. Id. By
adjusting the pressure of the oil and/or the aqueous solution, a
pressure difference can be established such that the stream of aqueous
IPR2015-01156
Patent 8,822,148 B2
12
solution is sheared off at a regular frequency as it enters the oil
stream, thereby forming droplets. Id. Figure 16A of Quake is
reproduced below:

Figure 16A depicts the channel architecture for the droplet extrusion
region. Channel 1601 containing an aqueous solution intersects with
the main channel 1602 containing oil. Ex. 1004 ¶ 292.
In preferred embodiments, the droplets have a volume of
approximately 0.1 to 100 picoliters. Id. According to Quake,
microfabrication of the device “permits other technologies to be
integrated or combined with flow cytometry on a single chip, such as
PCR.” Id. ¶ 80.
3. Analysis
Petitioner asserts that the combination of Haff and Quake
teaches or suggests each limitation of claims 1–8. Regarding claim 1,
Petitioner provides a claim chart identifying the disclosures of Haff
and Quake that purportedly teach or suggest each limitation. Pet. 19–
29. For example, Petitioner asserts that Figure 16A of Quake depicts
IPR2015-01156
Patent 8,822,148 B2
13
a microfluidic system with two channels having one junction. Pet.
19–20 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 3, 292). Petitioner also asserts that the
combination of Haff’s PCR device and Quake’s microfluidics device
suggests flowing the aqueous sample fluid and the oil through
separate channels and forming a plug of aqueous sample fluid in the
oil. Pet. 21–26 (citing Ex. 1021, 1:21–27, 10:20–35; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 3,
14, 20, 120, 290, Fig. 16A). Quake teaches that the aqueous droplets
are encapsulated, or substantially surrounded, by oil. Pet. 32 (citing
Ex. 1004 ¶ 100). Finally, Petitioner asserts that the combination of
Haff and Quake teaches providing conditions suitable for a
polymerase-chain reaction in at least one plug of the plurality of plugs
such that the target DNA or RNA is amplified. Pet. 28–29 (citing Ex.
1021, 1:12–15, 9:55–10:2, 10:15–19; Ex. 1004 ¶ 80).
Petitioner then argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have had a reason to modify Haff’s method of PCR in capillary
tube devices with the microfluidic device of Quake with a reasonable
expectation of success. For example, Petitioner asserts that both
references are directed to performing enzymatic reactions, such as
PCR, in small volumes of aqueous fluids. Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1021,
9:56–63 and Fig. 2; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 15, 80, 113, 290; Ex. 1002 ¶ 52).
Petitioner also contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have had a reason to practice Haff’s PCR method in Quake’s
microfluidic device to reduce the amount of reagents needed, which is
beneficial when the availability of the reagents and substrate are
limited. Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 72). According to Petitioner, the
reason to combine Quake with a PCR method comes from Quake
itself (id. at 34), which teaches that “[m]icrofabrication permits other
IPR2015-01156
Patent 8,822,148 B2
14
technologies to be integrated or combined with flow cytometry on a
single chip, such as PCR.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 80.
Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Haff and
Quake. Pet. 34–35; Ex. 1002 ¶ 73. Dr. Huck explains that Quake
teaches controlling the flow of oil and the flow of the aqueous sample
fluid to generate a stream of encapsulated droplets. Ex. 1002 ¶ 73.
Dr. Huck also states that Quake teaches adjusting the concentration of
the biological molecule to ensure that the droplets contain no more
than a single biological molecule and teaches that the device and
method can be integrated with PCR. Id. Accordingly, Dr. Huck
concludes:
[I]t would have required no more than routine skill and
knowledge in the art for a [skilled artisan] to adapt Haff’s
device to create a stream of oil-encapsulated droplets of PCR
reaction mixture comprising no more than a single target DNA
molecule, and to amplify the single target molecule.
Id.
In response, Patent Owner first argues that Haff is not
analogous art because the field of the ’148 patent is microfluidic
devices, and Haff involves larger volumes of fluids. Prelim. Resp.
26–28. Patent Owner also argues that Haff is not reasonably pertinent
to the problems being addressed in the ’148 patent. Id. at 28–30. We
are not persuaded. Although Haff does not disclose the use of PCR in
microfluidic devices, we do not believe such disclosure is necessary to
consider Haff to be analogous art. “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
IPR2015-01156
Patent 8,822,148 B2
15
it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s
attention in considering his problem.” In re ICON Health & Fitness,
Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2007). On the current record,
we find that Haff’s disclosure of PCR in larger-volume capillary tube
devices logically would have commended itself to the inventors’
attention when considering methods of conducting PCR in smaller
microfluidic devices. In other words, we find that the inventors
logically would have considered how PCR is conducted in capillary
tube devices to figure out how to scale down the reaction for
microfluidic devices.
Patent Owner also argues that the Petitioner does not establish
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable
expectation of success combining Haff and Quake. Prelim. Resp. 38–
47. In particular, Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s assertion that
the combination of Quake and Haff would have been “routine.”
Patent Owner states that Petitioner’s assertion “is undermined by the
lack of any reasoned explanation in the Petition for why this
combination would have been successful.” Id. at 46.
We have considered Petitioner’s arguments and evidence
together with the Preliminary Response, and, on this record, we agree
with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not met the threshold for
instituting an inter partes review of the ’148 patent. Petitioner and its
declarant state that it “would have required no more than routine skill
and knowledge in the art to adapt Haff’s capillary PCR device to use
Quake’s method of creating encapsulated plugs to perform PCR on a
target DNA sequence in a microfluidic device.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex.
1002 ¶ 73). But Petitioner cites insufficient evidence to support this
IPR2015-01156
Patent 8,822,148 B2
16
statement. For example, Petitioner and its declarant assert that a
skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in
doing so because “Quake teaches that his microfluidic device designs
can be used to perform PCR.” Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 73); see
also id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 80 in claim chart). We are not persuaded,
however, that such a conclusory statement by itself establishes a
reasonable likelihood that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Haff and
Quake.
We acknowledge that the Petition and Dr. Huck provide an
overview of the state of the art as of May 2002. Pet. 4–10; Ex. 1002
¶¶ 16–26. For example, the Petition describes a microfluidic system
for performing chemical reactions in droplets. Pet. 6 (citing Ex.
1011). And the Petition describes the development of PCR, including
microfluidic devices that could perform PCR on a nanoliter scale. Id.
at 7–8; see, e.g., Ex. 1017 (describing continuous-flow PCR on a
chip). According to Petitioner, those microfluidic devices “functioned
by injecting a stream of a single PCR reaction mixture into the device,
which was then flowed into a microfluidic PCR reaction chamber,
where the target sequence was amplified via thermocycling.” Pet. 8
(citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 22).
Despite that background information, we determine that
Petitioner has not explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have had a reasonable expectation of success combining Haff’s
capillary tube PCR system with Quake’s microfluidic system to
amplify a substrate in droplets. Simply stating that it would have
been “routine” is insufficient. To the extent Petitioner relies on the
IPR2015-01156
Patent 8,822,148 B2
17
background information to support a reasonable expectation of
success, Petitioner fails to explain any connection between the two.
For example, if conducting PCR in a stream of reaction mixture in a
microfluidic device was known, Petitioner has not explained why,
with that knowledge, it would have been routine to conduct PCR in
droplets in a microfluidic device. Moreover, even though Haff
describes conducting PCR in a capillary tube device, neither Petitioner
nor its declarant explains whether the conditions for conducting PCR
in microfluidic droplets would differ, or why a person of ordinary skill
in the art would consider conducting PCR in microfluidic droplets to
be “routine.”
Petitioner contends that a skilled artisan would have had a
reasonable expectation of success because Quake teaches how to
obtain encapsulated aqueous plugs with a single substrate molecule.
Pet. 34. But even with that teaching, Petitioner has not explained why
that—or any teaching in Haff or Quake—would establish a reasonable
expectation of success in providing conditions that are suitable to
conduct PCR in a microfluidic plug.
The unexplained opinion of Dr. Huck that it would have
required no more than routine skill and knowledge in the art “to adapt
Haff’s device to create a stream of oil-encapsulated droplets of PCR
reaction mixture comprising no more than a single target DNA
molecule, and to amplify the single target molecule” (Ex. 1002 ¶ 73)
also is not persuasive. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony
that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the
opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Ashland Oil, Inc.
v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir.
IPR2015-01156
Patent 8,822,148 B2
18
1985) (stating a lack of objective support for an expert opinion “may
render the testimony of little probative value in [a patentability]
determination”).
Without a sufficient explanation regarding the combination of
Haff and Quake, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish a
reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in its assertion that claim 1,
or dependent claims 2–8, are unpatentable as obvious over Haff and
Quake.
D. Obviousness of Claim 6 over Haff, Quake, and Ramsey
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and further requires that the oil
is fluorinated oil. Petitioner argues that claim 6 is unpatentable as
obvious over Haff, Quake, and Ramsey. Pet. 44–46. For the same
reasons stated above with respect to claim 1, we determine that
Petitioner has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that claim 6 is
unpatentable as obvious over the cited references.
CONCLUSION III.
We conclude that Petitioner has not established a reasonable
likelihood of prevailing on its assertions that claims 1–8 of the ’148
patent are unpatentable as obvious.
ORDER IV.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that the
Petition is denied.

IPR2015-01156
Patent 8,822,148 B2
19

PETITIONER:

Eldora L. Ellison
Deborah A. Sterling
Stern, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
eellison-PTAB@skgf.com
dsterlin-PTAB@skgf.com

PATENT OWNER:

Adrian Percer
Elizabeth Weiswasser
Edward R. Reines
Derek C. Walter
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP
adrian.percer@weil.com
elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com
edward.reines@weil.com
derek.walter@weil.com