Microboards Technology, LLC d/b/a Afiniav.STRATASYS INC.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2015

08862933 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 14
571-272-7822 Entered: May 27, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

MICROBOARDS TECHNOLOGY, LLC d/b/a AFINIA,
Petitioner,

v.

STRATASYS INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2015-00284
Patent 5,866,058

Before DONNA M. PRAISS, KRISTINA M. KALAN, and
JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108
IPR2015-00284
Patent 5,866,058

2
Microboards Technology, LLC d/b/a Afinia (“Petitioner”) filed a
Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 2,
and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,866,058 (“the ’058 patent,” Ex. 1001 ) pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. A Preliminary Response (Paper 9, “Prelim.
Resp.”) was filed by Stratasys Inc. (“Patent Owner”).
Petitioner challenges claims 1, 2, and 5 of the ’058 patent under 35
U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a). Pet. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 314. We deny institution of an inter partes review as to claims 1, 2, and 5
as discussed below.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Related Proceeding
The ’058 patent was asserted against Petitioner in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota in Stratasys Inc. v. Microboards
Technology, LLC, d/b/a Afinia, Civil Action No. 13-cv-03228. Pet. 2;
Paper 7, 1.

B. The ’058 Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’058 patent, titled “Method for Rapid Prototyping of Solid
Models,” is directed to a method of making a three-dimensional physical
object of a predetermined shape by sequentially extruding a heated flowable
modeling material into a build environment that maintains the temperature in
the vicinity of the newly deposited material between the material’s
solidification temperature and its creep temperature before cooling the
material below its solidification temperature. Ex. 1001, Abstr., 3:6–45. The
preferred thermally solidifiable material is a thermoplastic, for example, an
IPR2015-00284
Patent 5,866,058

3
ABS (acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene) thermoplastic having a solidification
temperature of “up to about 70ºC,” a deposition temperature “in the vicinity
of 270ºC,” and a creep temperature of “approximately 90ºC.” Id. at 3:46–
49, 4:31–5:5. “The cooling rate should be slow enough that the thermal
gradient limit set by equation 2 [(dT/dz)max=8δ/L2α] is not violated.” Id. at
5:27–29; see id. at 1:55–60, 2:11–16 (where dT/dz is a linear thermal
gradient in the geometric shape in the z direction orthogonal to the support
surface, δ is maximum allowable geometric distortion, L is maximum
horizontal length, and α is a constant thermal expansion coefficient for the
material).
C. Representative Claim 1
Claim 1 is representative of the claims challenged in the petition (Ex.
1001, 5:566:8):
1. A method for making a three-dimensional physical object of
a predetermined shape under control of a control system, said
method employing a thermally solidifiable material having a
solidification temperature and a creep relaxation temperature,
said method comprising the steps of:
a) dispensing said thermally solidifiable material in a fluid state
from an extruder into a build region having at least a local
region temperature that exceeds the solidification
temperature of the thermally solidifiable material;
b) simultaneously with the dispensing of the said thermally
solidifiable material, and in response to said control system,
generating relative movement between the extruder and a
support in the build region, so that the said thermally
solidifiable material accumulates on said support to form a
three-dimensional physical object; and
c) solidifying said thermally solidifiable material by cooling
said local region temperature and said material below the
solidification temperature of the material.
IPR2015-00284
Patent 5,866,058

4
Dependent claims 2 and 5 further require that “the thermally
solidifable material is a thermoplastic which exhibits a glass transition
temperature” (claim 2) and “the local region encompasses as least a most
recently deposited layer of said thermally solidifiable material” (claim 5).
Id. at 6:9–11, 19–21.
D. The Prior Art
Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
Reference Publication Date Exhibit
Batchelder US 5,303,141 Apr. 12, 1994 1010
Crump US 5,340,433 Aug. 23, 1994 1007
Hasegawa EP 0 180 383 A2 May 7, 1986 1008
Whelan TONY WHELAN & JOHN GOFF,
INJECTION MOLDING OF
THERMOPLASTICS MATERIALS, 81,
86–89
1990 1009
FDM STRATASYS INC., FDM SYSTEM
DOCUMENTATION
1993, 1994,
1995, 1999,
2000, 2001
1005
Petitioner also provides the Declaration of Thomas A. Campbell, Ph.D.,
dated November 21, 2014 (“Campbell Decl.” Ex. 1003) as support for its
arguments.
E. The Asserted Grounds
Petitioner challenges claims 1, 2, and 5 of the ’058 patent on the
following grounds:
IPR2015-00284
Patent 5,866,058

5

Claims Challenged Basis Reference(s)
1, 2, and 5 § 102(b)1 FDM
1, 2, and 5 § 103(a) FDM, Crump, and Hasegawa
1, 2, and 5 § 103(a) Crump and Whelan
1, 2, and 5 § 103(a) Crump, Hasegawa, and Batchelder

II. ANALYSIS
“The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted
unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition
. . . shows that 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) (emphasis added). We determine that the Petition
includes insufficient information to meet this threshold.
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed
Techs. LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1279–83 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Under the broadest
reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their 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). Any special definition for a claim term

1 Petitioner asserts the claims also are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
See Pet. 4. FDM, however, is neither an application for patent nor a patent,
therefore we understand Petitioner’s anticipation challenge to be under
§ 102(b).
IPR2015-00284
Patent 5,866,058

6
must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Petitioner proposes the following claim constructions (Pet. 11–15):
Term Proposed Construction
Thermally
solidifiable material
A material that undergoes a state change, from a fluid
to a solid, according to temperature
Solidification
temperature
A temperature at which the material may be
considered to be solid at which there is very little
creep
Creep relaxation
temperature
The point at which the stress relaxation modulus has
dropped by a factor of 10 from its low temperature
limit (indicating that it is sufficiently solid to begin
modeling)
Build region
A heated build environment in which the temperature
gradient is stable from the top layer (in the z-
direction) relative to the bottom layer
Local regional
temperature
A specific temperature window in the vicinity of
where newly deposited material will be applied that is
in a range between the material’s solidification
temperature and its creep relaxation temperature
Cooling said local
region temperature
Cooling that will be slow enough that the thermal
gradient limit set by equation 2 is not violated
Patent Owner does not take any position with respect to the proposed
claim constructions. Prelim. Resp. 24.
Regarding the terms “thermally solidifiable material,” “solidification
temperature,” and “creep relaxation temperature,” Petitioner has not shown
that the proposed constructions are other than the ordinary and customary
meanings of these terms. Therefore, based on the record before us, these
terms need not be construed expressly for purposes of this decision.
Regarding the term “build region,” we agree with Petitioner that this
term refers to the build environment identified in the ’058 patent, however,
we decline to read into the term additional limitations from the specification
IPR2015-00284
Patent 5,866,058

7
regarding the temperature gradient conditions in either the build
environment or the physical object (Petitioner’s proposed construction does
not specify). See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, under the doctrine of claim differentiation, claim 1 is
presumed to be broader than dependent claim 7, which specifically recites a
temperature gradient in the physical object. See Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v.
Cybex Int’l, Inc., 423 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Therefore,
Petitioner’s proposed construction would make dependent claim 7
superfluous. Moreover, claim 1 itself specifies a minimum temperature
condition for the build region, namely, that the build region “[has] at least a
local region temperature that exceeds the solidification temperature of the
thermally solidifiable material.” Ex. 1001, 5:62–64. Therefore, we construe
“build region” to mean “build environment,” consistent with the
specification. See id. at 5:35–37.
Regarding the term “local regional temperature,” we agree with
Petitioner that this term refers to the temperature in the region that is in the
vicinity of newly deposited material, but we decline to read into the claim
term a specific temperature or temperature range. Based on this record, it
would be improper to read into claim 1 a specific temperature range for the
local regional temperature because that would make dependent claim 6
superfluous. See id. at 6:22–25. It also would be internally inconsistent
because claim 1 already recites a minimum temperature for the local region
temperature “that exceeds the solidification temperature of the thermally
solidifiable material.” See id. at 5:63–64. Therefore, we construe “local
regional temperature” to mean “the temperature in the region that is in the
vicinity of newly deposited material.”
IPR2015-00284
Patent 5,866,058

8
Regarding the term “cooling said local region temperature” in step (c)
of claim 1, we decline to read into the term a particular rate of cooling from
the specification. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184. Moreover, to the
extent that Petitioner seeks to limit the cooling step in claim 1 to require a
thermal gradient in the physical object that is below a threshold value, such a
claim construction would make dependent claim 7 superfluous. See Free
Motion Fitness, Inc., 423 F.3d at 1351. Therefore, based on this record,
there is no reason to construe the term “cooling said local region
temperature” as proposed by Petitioner for purposes of this decision.
B. Anticipation by FDM
Based on our review of the arguments and supporting evidence
submitted by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we are not persuaded that
Petitioner has shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would
prevail in its challenge to claims 1, 2, and 5 as anticipated by FDM.2
According to Petitioner, FDM is a manual that describes the structure
and operation of the FDM 1600 device first sold in 1994 by Patent Owner.
Pet. 15. Petitioner asserts that FDM is a printed publication because the
manual itself indicates it was published and distributed to customers to
provide contact information and directions for operating and maintaining the
device. Id. at 15–16. Petitioner also asserts that FDM discloses the use of
ABS plastic and a heated build region, and an enclosed building envelope
with temperature controls to produce an object through layered

2 Exhibit 1005. The acronym “FDM” refers to “Fused Deposition
Modeling.” Id. at MB060. Citations to Exhibit 1005 are to the native
alphanumeric indicators and/or Petitioner’s numbering, which is prefixed
with the letters “MB.”
IPR2015-00284
Patent 5,866,058

9
manufacturing. Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1005, F16-5, 7, 16, 23, MI-5; Ex. 1003
¶ 41). According to Petitioner, FDM teaches a liquefier temperature of
270ºC and an envelope temperature of 70ºC for ABS plastics. Id. at 19
(citing Ex. 1005, MI-5 (MB186)).3 The Petitioner asserts “[b]oth FDM 1600
Manual and the ’058 Patent specifically teach use of ABS dispensed at the
same temperature window.” Id. at 20. The Petition goes on to quote from
paragraph 46 of the Campbell Declaration, which quotes the ’058 patent, not
the FDM, for the teaching “[i]n the case of ABS, the temperature window
falls between approximately 70º C and approximately 90º C.” Id.; see Ex.
1003 ¶ 46.
Page F16-23 (MB080) of the FDM and paragraph 48 of the Campbell
Declaration also are cited by Petitioner to show that “thermally solidifiable
material is extruded into a build region having a local temperature that
exceeds the solidification temperature and is then cooled below the local
regional temperature, for example the platen is removed from the machine,
proving cooling.” Id. at 20–21. Paragraph 48 of the Campbell Declaration
echoes the same statement without elaboration and includes the same image
of an empty platen removed from the foundation tray, reprinted below. Ex.
1003 ¶ 48 (citing Ex. 1005, F16-23 (MB080)).

3 We understand Petitioner’s citation to page F16-23 in Ex. 1005 to be a
typographical error because the image on page 18 of the Petition indicates in
the header that the page is MI-5.
IPR2015-00284
Patent 5,866,058

10

The Removable Foundation image above illustrates the foam foundation,
foundation tray, and platen. Ex. 1005, F16–30 (MB087). Contrary to
Petitioner’s citation, this image appears on page MB087 of Exhibit 1005
with page number F16-30 in the header and a date of “5OCT95” in the
footer.
Patent Owner does not dispute that it published a manual for the FDM
1600 device in 1994 and 1995 that was distributed to customers. Instead,
Patent Owner contends that the composition of Exhibit 1005 (FDM) does
not constitute a prior printed publication and does not disclose all of the
elements of the challenged claims. Prelim. Resp. 1. Patent Owner also
contends that the Petition does not show that FDM discloses a local region
temperature that exceeds the solidification temperature of the thermally
solidifiable material. Id. at 24–28.
We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition is conclusory with
respect to FDM disclosing, either expressly or inherently, a local region
temperature that exceeds the solidification temperature of the thermally
solidifiable material. Both the Petition and the Campbell Declaration
suggest that the envelope temperature disclosed in FDM may be related to
IPR2015-00284
Patent 5,866,058

11
the local region temperature, but neither analyzes the temperature in the
region that is in the vicinity of where newly deposited material will be
applied when the deposition temperature is 270ºC and the envelope
temperature is 70ºC. Even if the local region temperature were the same as
the envelope temperature, the temperature of 70ºC is the same as the
solidification temperature for ABS thermoplastic, not in excess of the
solidification temperature as required by claim 1.
The Petition also asserts that the temperature of the “ABS material
dispensed” in FDM is in the temperature window of approximately 70ºC and
approximately 90ºC. Pet. 20. This assertion is supported only by the same
conclusory statements of Dr. Campbell, which include an unattributed quote
from the ’058 patent alone describing maintaining this temperature range in
the vicinity of where newly deposited material will be applied. See Ex. 1003
¶ 46; cf. Ex. 1001, 4:60–5:5. The assertion is inconsistent with the statement
that both FDM and the ’058 patent “teach that the ‘deposition temperature
needs to be in the vicinity of 270º C.’” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 47). The
Petition does not show adequately that the claimed local region temperature
is inherently disclosed by FDM when the modeling temperature is 270ºC
and the enclosure temperature is 70ºC in the FDM device. See Pet. 15–22;
Ex. 1005, F16-23 (MB080).
Consequently, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a
reasonable likelihood that claim 1, or claims 2 and 5, which depend
therefrom, are anticipated by FDM under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We need not
reach the question of whether FDM is a printed publication.

IPR2015-00284
Patent 5,866,058

12
C. Obviousness over FDM, Crump, and Hasegawa
Based on our review of the arguments and supporting evidence
submitted by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we are not persuaded that
Petitioner has shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would
prevail in its challenge to claims 1, 2, and 5 as obvious over FDM, Crump,
and Hasegawa.
Petitioner asserts that, if not supported by FDM, Crump “teaches the
benefit of a heated cabinet which provides a local region temperature.” Pet.
27.4 Petitioner also asserts that Crump teaches “the additional use of a
heating cabinet for control of the build temperature,” and quotes Crump as
disclosing “the temperature inside the operating cabinet is kept within a
range of 40º C to 60º C.” Id. at 30 (quoting Ex. 1007, 15:35–36) (emphasis
omitted). Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious to combine
Crump with FDM’s teaching of ABS, a liquefier temperature of 270º C, and
an envelope temperature maintained at 70º C. Id. at 31. In addition,
Petitioner asserts that Hasegawa teaches the use of a temperature within a
build environment to reduce warping or curling with ABS plastic. Id. at 34.
Specifically, Hasegawa teaches injection molding a second layer of
thermoplastic resin while keeping the temperature of the first layer “in the
range of the softening point of +/- 30º C.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1008, 5:9–11).

4 Crump is a continuation-in-part of US Patent 5,121,329 (Ex. 1006, “the
’329 patent”). The Petition relies upon various portions of the ’329 patent.
The ’329 patent, however, is neither expressly incorporated by reference in
Crump, nor is it a cited prior art reference in any of the obviousness
challenges in the Petition, therefore, we do not consider it. See In re Lund,
376 F.2d 982, 989 (CCPA 1967) (continuation-in-part relationship alone did
not amount to an incorporation by reference of the disclosures in the parent).
IPR2015-00284
Patent 5,866,058

13
Patent Owner contends that the Petition does not equate or analyze the
relationship of Crump’s cabinet temperature to the local region temperature
required by claim 1 and, even if the temperature zones were equated, Crump
does not teach a temperature value that exceeds the solidification
temperature of ABS. Prelim. Resp. 32–33, 34–35. Patent Owner also
contends that the Petition does not indicate how Hasegawa discloses a local
region temperature or why temperature control of the first layer molded in
an injection mold corresponds to the claimed local region layer in a three-
dimensional printing process. Id. at 33–34. Patent Owner also contends that
the reasons for combining Crump and Hasegawa with FDM are conclusory
and fail to articulate how the process of FDM could be modified by Crump
and Hasegawa, particularly because Hasegawa is directed to the different
technology of injection molding. Id. at 36–38.
Even if Hasegawa were analogous art to the ’058 patent, we are not
persuaded that Petitioner has explained adequately why an ordinary artisan
would have modified FDM’s three-dimensional printing process in view of
the process conditions described by Crump and Hasegawa. Petitioner’s
arguments that it would have been obvious to combine FDM with Crump
and Hasegawa are conclusory and unpersuasive. See Pet. 31–32, 35. As
discussed above, the Petition does not show sufficiently that FDM discloses
a local region temperature that exceeds the solidification temperature of
ABS based on FDM’s disclosure of an enclosure temperature that is
maintained at the solidification temperature of ABS. Further, it is
insufficient for Petitioner to argue that heated cabinets in three-dimensional
printing were known and controlled temperatures of injection molded
thermoplastic layers were known at the time of the ’058 patent invention to
IPR2015-00284
Patent 5,866,058

14
establish obviousness of claim 1. As the Supreme Court stated, “a patent
composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by
demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the
prior art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
“Although common sense directs one to look with care” at patent claims that
combine “two known devices according to their established functions, it can
be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of
ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements.” Id.; Unigene
Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“Obviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes
separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under
examination. 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 . . . .”) (citations omitted).
Petitioner asserts that the temperature value of +/- 30º C of the
softening point is taught by Hasegawa for the purpose of reducing warping.
Pet. 35. The disclosure in Hasegawa that Petitioner quotes in support states
“[i]n this temperature range, the resulting housings may not warp and the
two layers of the housings are strongly bonded to each other.” Id. (quoting
Ex. 1008, 10:8–10). Petitioner does not articulate a reason for selecting a
temperature that exceeds the solidification temperature of the material based
on this disclosure, or a reason to apply it to an extrusion process to form a
three-dimensional object.
Petitioner asserts that the temperature of the build enclosure is
controlled in Crump for the purpose of “ensur[ing] that the thermally
solidifiable material does not solidify too quickly after it is dispensed.” Id.
IPR2015-00284
Patent 5,866,058

15
at 31 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 62). Again, Petitioner does not articulate a reason
for selecting a local region temperature that exceeds the solidification
temperature of the material based on this disclosure. Instead, Petitioner
concludes from this disclosure that “[t]hese are the teachings of claim 1 of
the ’058 Patent . . . .” Id. The Campbell Declaration likewise jumps to the
same conclusion without articulating a reason why one of ordinary skill in
the art would have selected a higher temperature range and a localized
region based on this teaching.
Petitioner, thus, provides neither a sufficiently articulated reasoning
nor a rational evidentiary underpinning explaining why an ordinary artisan
would have had reason to select, for a three-dimensional printing process, a
local region temperature that exceeds the solidification temperature of a
thermally solidifiable material, in light of FDM’s teaching of an enclosure
temperature maintained at the solidification temperature of ABS, Crump’s
teaching of a cabinet temperature maintained below the solidification
temperature of ABS, and Hasegawa’s teaching that a first injection molded
layer is kept in a temperature range that is +/- 30º C of the softening point of
a thermoplastic resin. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441
F.3d at 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “some articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness”)).
Consequently, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a
reasonable likelihood that claim 1, and claims 2 and 5, which depend
therefrom, are unpatentable over FDM, Crump, and Hasegawa under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
IPR2015-00284
Patent 5,866,058

16
D. Obviousness over Crump and Whelan
Based on our review of the arguments and evidence in the Petition and
the Preliminary Response, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown
sufficiently that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in its
challenge to claims 1, 2, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Crump and
Whelan.
We are not persuaded that Petitioner has explained adequately why an
ordinary artisan would have considered it obvious to modify Crump’s three-
dimensional printing process in view of Whelan, a textbook on injection
molding. Petitioner’s arguments that it would have been obvious to combine
Crump and Whelan are conclusory and unpersuasive. See Pet. 38. Further,
the asserted reason for the combination does not explain why the selected
processing and mold temperatures in Whelan for injection molding of a
material containing 15–35% glass fiber reinforcement would have been
combined with the Crump system other than “the exact parameters disclosed
in Figures 3A to 3B [of the ’058 patent] are shown in [Whelan], even though
the processes are different.” Id. The Petition does not provide an adequate
reason or evidentiary basis to explain the combination of Whelan’s mold
temperature in the Crump system. Using the ’058 patent claim as the basis
for the selection of components to be combined, rather than solely as
information available to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention, is not a rationale for combining, but, rather, impermissible
hindsight. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).
Consequently, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a
reasonable likelihood that claim 1, as well as claims 2 and 5, which depend
therefrom, are unpatentable as obvious over Crump and Whelan.
IPR2015-00284
Patent 5,866,058

17
E. Obviousness over Crump, Hasegawa, and Batchelder
Based on our review of the arguments and evidence in the Petition and
the Preliminary Response, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown
sufficiently that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in its
challenge to claims 1, 2, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Crump,
Hasegawa, and Batchelder.
Petitioner relies on Crump and Hasegawa for teaching the elements of
claims 1, 2, and 5 (Pet. 39) and Batchelder for teaching a method for
fabricating a three-dimensional object using a closed-loop extrusion nozzle
with external heating and cooling of the extruded material (id. at 40–41).
According to Petitioner, “Batchelder reinforces that external sources of
heating of extruded materials, including thermoplastics, etc., along with
external sources of cooling such extruded materials in order to facilitate
solidification of such materials after extrusion, were well known prior to the
filing of the ’058 patent.” Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 83, 84).
Because we find that Petitioner has not shown adequately that Crump
and/or Hasegawa teach the elements of claims 1, 2, and 5 for the reasons
discussed above, Petitioner’s argument that Batchelder reinforces heating at
an unspecified temperature and location external to the nozzle is insufficient
to show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, and 5 are obvious over the
combination of Crump, Hasegawa, and Batchelder. See id. In addition, the
Petition lacks a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill
in the relevant field to combine the selected features of Crump, Hasegawa,
and Batchelder. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. The Petition provides only the
following sentence to address the obviousness of claim 1 over the
combination:
IPR2015-00284
Patent 5,866,058

18
The combination of the above-described art thus renders claim
1 obvious as Exh. 1008 [Hasegawa] teaches to maintain[] the
adjoining layers within +/- 30ºC of the softening point of the
previous layer on the one hand and Exh. 1010 [Batchelder]
teaches heating the plastic subsequent to extrusion on the other
hand.
Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 84). Paragraph 84 of the Campbell Declaration
likewise provides no reason for combining the injection molding method of
Hasegawa (on the one hand) with the three-dimensional printing methods of
Batchelder and Crump (on the other hand).
Consequently, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a
reasonable likelihood that claim 1 as well as claims 2 and 5, which depend
therefrom, are unpatentable as obvious over Crump, Hasegawa, and
Batchelder.
F. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, based on the record presented, we
determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing on its asserted grounds of unpatentability of claims 1, 2, and 5 of
the ’058 patent.

III. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that institution of inter partes review is denied.

IPR2015-00284
Patent 5,866,058

19
PETITIONER:

William Cass
Hebert Bedingfield
CANTOR COLBURN LLP
wcass@cantorcolburn.com
hbedingfield@cantorcolburn.com

Brad Pedersen
PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A.
prps@ptslaw.com

PATENT OWNER:

Walter Linder
Kenneth Liebman
Timothy E. Grimsrud
FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
Walter.linder@faegrebd.com
Liebman@FaegreBD.com
Tim.Grimsrud@FaegreBD.com