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

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 28, 2015

12565397 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 13
571-272-7822 Entered: May 28, 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 IPR2015-00288
Patent 8,349,239 B2
____________

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

TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108
IPR2015-00288
Patent 8,349,239 B2

2
I. BACKGROUND
Microboards Technology, LLC d/b/a Afina (“Petitioner”) filed a
Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4,
5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,349,239 B2 (“the ’239 patent”).
Stratasys Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8,
“Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), 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.” For the reasons discussed below, we
determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing with respect to any of the challenged claims of the ’239 patent.
Accordingly, we do not authorize institution of an inter partes review.
A. Related Proceeding
The parties represent that the ’239 patent currently is being asserted
against Petitioner in Stratasys Inc. v. Microboards Technology, LLC d/b/a
Afina, Civil Action No. 13-cv-03228 (D. Minn.). Pet. 2; Paper 6, 1.
B. The ’239 Patent
The ’239 patent is titled “Seam Concealment for Three-Dimensional
Models” and is directed to a method of making three-dimensional objects
using extrusion-based digital manufacturing systems. Ex. 1001, 1:6–10.
Specifically, the ’239 patent is directed to a method of generating contour
tool paths that define an interior region of a layer of the three-dimensional
model, with at least one of the starting point or stopping point of the contour
tool path located within the interior region of the layer. Id. at 1:53–58.
“This effectively conceals the seam that is formed at the intersection of the
IPR2015-00288
Patent 8,349,239 B2

3
starting and stop points, which can increase the aesthetic and functional
qualities of the resulting 3D model.” Id. at 3:4–7.
Figures 2 and 3 of the ’239 patent are depicted below:

IPR2015-00288
Patent 8,349,239 B2

4
Figure 2 is a top view of a layer of a 3D model being built with an
extrusion-based system. Id. at 2:17–18. Figure 3 is an expanded view of
section 3 taken in Figure 2, “illustrating a seam of the layer with an open-
square arrangement.” Id. at 2:19–21. In Figure 2, “layer 36 includes
perimeter path 38, which is a road of a modeling material that is deposited”
by an extrusion head “along contour path 40.” Id. at 5:54–56. Perimeter
path 38 includes exterior surface 46, which is the outward-facing surface
that may be observable when the 3D model is completed. Id. at 6:8–10.
Interior region 50 is “confined within perimeter path 38, and may be filled
with additional modeling material deposited along additionally generated
tool paths.” Id. at 6:12–16.
The ’239 patent discloses that conventional contour tool paths have
start and stop points (points 58 and 60 of Figure 3, respectively) that are
collinear with the outer ring of the contour tool path, with the stop point next
to the start point. Id. at 6:39–51. In this conformation, material deposited at
point 60 may “bump into” the modeling material previously deposited at
start point 58, forming a bulge at seam 64. Id. at 6:52–59. Or, if not enough
modeling material is deposited between points 58 and 60, a gap may form at
the seam, increasing the porosity of the 3D model. Id. at 6:59–62.
To avoid creating a bulge or gap at seam 64, the ’239 patent discloses
a method wherein the start and stop points are adjusted to points 52 and 54
of Figure 3, respectively. Id. at 7:3–6. “This allows any variations in the
extrusion process when starting and stopping the deposition to occur at a
location that is within interior region 50 rather than adjacent to exterior
surface 46.” Id. at 7:6–10.
IPR2015-00288
Patent 8,349,239 B2

5
Figure 15, set forth below, discloses another embodiment of this
process using a “step-over arrangement.” Id. at 2:57–59.

In Figure 15, the extrusion head deposits material from point 1052 until it
reaches point 1092, substantially forming perimeter path 1038a. Id. at
12:17–22. “At this point, while continuing to deposit the modeling
material,” the extrusion head “steps over from perimeter path 1038a to begin
forming perimeter path 1038b at point 1094.” Id. at 12:22–25. This step-
over arrangement, with seam 1064 extending “inward within interior region
1050,” is said to eliminate the formation of bulges, and reduce or eliminate
the transmission of gases and/or liquids through seam 1064. Id. at 12:31–35.
C. Illustrative Claims
Claims 1 and 15 are independent. Claims 2, 4, 5, and 7 depend from
claim 1; claims 17 and 18 depend from claim 15. Claims 1 and 15 are
illustrative of the claimed methods and are reproduced below:
IPR2015-00288
Patent 8,349,239 B2

6
1. A method for building a three-dimensional model with an
extrusion-based digital manufacturing system, the method
comprising generating a contour tool path that defines an
interior region of a layer of the three-dimensional model,
wherein the contour tool path comprises a start point, a stop
point, and a step-over arrangement between the start point and
the stop point, wherein the step-over arrangement is oriented at
a non-right angle, wherein at least one of the start point and the
stop point is located within the interior region of the layer, and
wherein the step-over arrangement reduces surface porosity for
the three-dimensional model.

Ex. 1001, 14:9–19.

15. A method for building a three-dimensional model with an
extrusion-based digital manufacturing system, the method
comprising:
generating a tool path that comprises:
a start point for the tool path;
a stop point for the tool path;
a contour tool path extending from the start point and
based on a perimeter of a layer of the three-dimensional
model, wherein the generated contour tool path defines
an interior region of the layer; and
an interior raster path extending from the contour tool path
within the interior region of the layer, wherein the
interior raster path ends at the stop point; and
extruding a material in a pattern based on the generated tool
path to form the perimeter and at least a portion of the
interior of the layer of the three-dimensional model.

Id. at 16:9–24.
D. The Prior Art
Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references, as well as the
Declaration of Thomas A. Campbell, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003):
IPR2015-00288
Patent 8,349,239 B2

7
Reference Publication Date Exhibit
Alexander US 6,859,681 B1 Feb. 22, 2005 Ex. 1008
Jang US 2003/0236588 A1 Dec. 25, 2003 Ex. 1009

Ju-Hsien Kao, Process Planning for Additive/Subtractive Solid Freeform
Fabrication Using Medial Axis Transform, 1–159 (1999) (Ph.D. diss.,
Stanford Univ.) (Ex. 1005, “Kao”);

P. Kulkarni & D. Dutta, Deposition Strategies and Resulting Part Stiffnesses
in Fused Deposition Modeling, 121 J. MFG. SCI. & ENG’G. 93 (Feb. 1999)
(Ex. 1006, “Kulkarni”); and

Jianzhong Ruan et al., 2–D Depsoition (Sic) Pattern and Strategy Study on
Rapid Manufacturing, PROCEEDINGS OF IDETC/CIE 2006, 1–7 (Ex. 1007,
“Ruan”).

E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
Petitioner challenges claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 on the
following grounds:
Reference(s) Basis Claims Challenged
Kao § 102 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18
Kao and Alexander § 103 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18
Kao and Ruan § 103 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18
Kao and Kulkarni § 103 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18
Jang and Kulkarni and/or Kao § 103 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18

II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be
given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed
Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1279–83 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In determining the
IPR2015-00288
Patent 8,349,239 B2

8
broadest reasonable construction, we presume that claim terms carry their
ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This presumption may be rebutted when a
patentee, acting as a lexicographer, sets forth an alternate definition of a
term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
1. An interior raster path
Petitioner contends that the term “an interior raster path” should be
construed to mean “a tool path that is used to fill [in] a portion of an interior
region defined by a perimeter.” Pet. 17. Patent Owner contends that
Petitioner’s construction is too broad because a raster path is but one
example of a tool path that is used to fill in an interior region. Prelim. Resp.
6–7. According to Patent Owner, the established meaning of “raster path” is
a “back and forth path.” Id. at 8.
The ’239 patent Specification, as well as the art cited by Petitioner,
supports Patent Owner’s proposed construction. For example, the ’239
patent Specification describes the deposition of modeling material in a
“back-and-forth raster pattern.” Ex. 1001, 11:3–4, Fig. 11. Likewise, Ruan
describes a “raster pattern,” or “zigzag path” in which the “tip of the nozzle
is moved back and forth parallel to referenced directions.” Ex. 1007, 2; see
also Ex. 1005, 108 (“Common patterns for generating deposition paths
include raster patterns – paths are parallel to a pre-determined direction.”).
Patent Owner does not account, however, for the term “interior” in its
construction. We agree with Petitioner that, in the context of the ’239
patent, this term means “an interior region defined by a perimeter.” See Ex.
1001, 10:65–11:4, 11:29–34. Accordingly, we construe “interior raster
IPR2015-00288
Patent 8,349,239 B2

9
path” as “a back and forth path used to fill in a portion of an interior region
defined by a perimeter.”
2. Additional Claim Terms
Petitioner provides the following additional proposed constructions
(Pet. 17–19):
Term Proposed Construction
A contour tool path A tool path that defines a
perimeter of a 3D model for the
given layer
An interior region of a layer of the
three-dimensional model
An area defined by a contour
path
A step-over arrangement between
the start point and the stop point
The junction where the tool path
moves from a perimeter path to
an interior path
Oriented at a non-right angle The orientation is at an angle
that is not ninety degrees

Patent Owner does not propose any construction for these terms.
On this record, we are persuaded that the proposed constructions are
consistent with the Specification and represent the broadest reasonable
construction. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s constructions for purposes
of this decision.
B. Anticipation by Kao
Petitioner contends that Kao anticipates claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17,
and 18 of the ’239 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 19–34. In support
of this argument, Petitioner relies upon the testimony of Dr. Campbell. Ex.
1003.
Kao is directed to the use of solid freeform fabrication (SFF)
techniques to produce complex solid objects through successive 2D layer
deposition. Ex. 1005, 2. Kao focuses on the use of spiral deposition paths,
IPR2015-00288
Patent 8,349,239 B2

10
and discloses two different strategies for generating such paths: constant-
offsetting and adaptive-offsetting. Id. at 8–9, 108 (“For extrusion-based
deposition processes, spiral path patterns are often preferred for producing
isotropic deposits.”), 115–116.
In the constant-offsetting approach, the distance between the paths is
kept constant; in the adaptive-offsetting approach, step-over distances are
varied to accommodate the non-uniform thickness of the region. Id. at 115.
Table 6.1, set forth below, depicts the results of these two approaches:
Id. at 116. According to Kao, the adaptive-offsetting approach is
advantageous because it produces smooth “connected spiral deposition
paths,” whereas the constant-offsetting approach may result in gaps and
disconnected entities. Id. at 110, 116, 122, Fig. 6.6.
Patent Owner contends that Kao does not anticipate claim 1 because
Kao does not disclose, inter alia, either “a step-over arrangement” or a start
or stop point that is within an interior region of the layer (as defined by the
contour tool path). Prelim. Resp. 14, 19–20. We agree.
With respect to the start and stop points, Petitioner states that “it is
assumed that the ‘spiral path’ described by Kao would be understood by a
person of ordinary skill in the art as having a start point and a stop point that
are radially offset from each other.” Pet. 24. Based on this assumption,
Petitioner concludes that the “spiral path” of Kao expressly discloses
IPR2015-00288
Patent 8,349,239 B2

11
“wherein at least one of the start point and the stop point is located within
the interior region of the layer,” as recited in claim 1. Id. (citing Ex. 1003
¶ 46).
Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive because it relies entirely upon
unsupported assumptions and the conclusory testimony of Dr. Campbell,
which is entitled to little, if any, weight. 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.”). Petitioner’s argument
also conflicts with Kao’s figures which, on this record, disclose adjoining
start and stop points, and not points that are radially offset. Thus, we are not
persuaded that Petitioner has set forth sufficient argument or evidence to
show that Kao discloses a start or stop point that is located within the
interior region of a layer.
In support of Petitioner’s argument that Kao discloses a “step-over
arrangement,” Dr. Campbell testifies as follows:
For purposes of the proposed anticipation rejection over Kao it
is assumed that the “sharp turns” described as problematic in
Kao encompass the very kind of “right angles” shown in Jang
and which were overcome during original prosecution of the
’239 Patent by the addition of the claim language “oriented at a
non-right angle.” Accordingly, Kao’s express teaching of
providing for “the least amount of sharp turns” in [a] deposition
path having varying step over distances would be understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art as [] teaching an arrangement
wherein “the step-over arrangement is oriented at a non-right
angle.”
Ex. 1003 ¶ 44.
In his testimony, however, Dr. Campbell fails to explain why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “varying step-over
distances” of Kao constitute a step-over arrangement. Id. Dr. Campbell’s
IPR2015-00288
Patent 8,349,239 B2

12
testimony is also inconsistent with Kao’s figures which, as noted by Patent
Owner, do not show a step-over arrangement, “let alone a non-right angle
step-over.” Prelim. Resp. 14; Ex. 1005, Table 6.1 (disclosing a tool path
with varying step-over distances but no step-over arrangement, where the
tool path transitions from a perimeter path to an interior path). Thus, we are
not persuaded that Petitioner has set forth sufficient argument or evidence in
the Petition to show that Kao discloses a step-over arrangement, as recited in
claim 1.
With respect to claim 15, Petitioner asserts that Kao’s “continuous
tool path that may spiral in and which is continuous” is “an interior raster
path extending from the contour tool path.” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1005, 115–
117). This argument is not persuasive because it is premised on a claim
construction that we do not adopt, i.e., that an interior raster path is any tool
path used to fill in a portion of an interior area. Moreover, Petitioner offers
no credible evidence to support its conclusion that Kao contemplates one
continuous tool path that spirals in, as opposed to individual, continuous
offset curves (or loops) separated by varying step-over distances. Ex. 1005,
116; Ex. 1003 ¶ 54 (citing broadly to pages 115–117 of Kao, which do not
use the term “spiral in”).
Based on the foregoing, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner has
demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that independent claims 1 and 15, or
their respective dependent claims, are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by
Kao.
C. Obviousness over Kao and Alexander
To the extent “Kao is found not to expressly disclose[] the claimed
start and stop points of the tool path or a raster path extending from the
IPR2015-00288
Patent 8,349,239 B2

13
contour path,” Petitioner contends that these elements, as well as claims 1, 2,
4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 as a whole, would have been obvious in view of Kao
and Alexander. Pet. 34.
Alexander is directed to the modeling of parts using “spiral-in, spiral-
out, and arbitrary direction raster tool paths.” Ex. 1008, 2:36–44; see id. at
6:65–67, 7:49–50. Figures 3(c) and 7 of Alexander are depicted below:

IPR2015-00288
Patent 8,349,239 B2

14
Id. at 3:3–4 (“FIG. 3C is a screen display of a top view of one layer”), 3:27–
28 (“FIG. 7 is a screen display of a sample layer at height 26 mm” showing a
combination of toolpaths).
Petitioner contends that Alexander’s spiral-in, spiral-out, and raster
tool paths, in combination with Kao’s disclosure that deposition paths
should use the “least amount of sharp turns” and “yield no disconnected
patterns,” would have rendered obvious a “step-over arrangement that is
oriented at a non-right angle.” Pet. 36. Petitioner further contends that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that any of the spiral-in,
spiral-out, or arbitrary raster tool paths disclosed in Alexander could be used
for seam concealment and porosity reduction. Id. at 36–37.
In its arguments, Petitioner does not explain why the spiral-in, spiral-
out, or raster tool paths discussed in Alexander contain or suggest a step-
over arrangement. Prelim. Resp. 29; Ex. 1005, 116, Table 6.1; Ex. 1008,
Figs. 3(c), 7; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–64. Indeed, the figures of Alexander relied
upon by Petitioner depict individual, continuous contour paths or loops. Dr.
Campbell’s Declaration in support of Petitioner’s arguments largely restates
the arguments made by Petitioner in its Petition. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–64. Thus,
we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown that Alexander discloses or
suggests a step-over arrangement.
With respect to independent claim 15, Petitioner again contends that
Kao’s disclosure of “a continuous tool path that may spiral in and which is
continuous” satisfies “an interior raster path extending from the contour tool
path within the interior region of the layer.” Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1005, 115–
117). As noted above, this argument is not persuasive because we do not
IPR2015-00288
Patent 8,349,239 B2

15
adopt Petitioner’s proposed claim construction equating a raster tool path
with any tool path used to fill an interior region of the layer.
Based on the record before us, Petitioner has not demonstrated a
reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 of the ’239
patent would have been obvious over Kao and Alexander.
D. Obviousness over Kao and Ruan
Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 of the ’239
patent would have been obvious over Kao and Ruan. Pet. 40–47. Petitioner
characterizes Ruan as directed to “the study of the effect of 2-D deposition
patterns on the geometry of deposition results,” and as disclosing that a
regular 2-D shape can be decomposed into several “cell” similar shapes with
different deposition strategies applied to each “cell.” Pet. 41 (citing Ex.
1007, 1).
Ruan focuses on the use of zigzag and spiral-like deposition patterns,
as depicted in Figure 1 below:

Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1007, 2); Ex. 1003 ¶ 74 (Dr. Campbell asserting that the
tool path in Figure 1(b) “spirals from the interior position to the exterior
position to form a continuous path”).
IPR2015-00288
Patent 8,349,239 B2

16
Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
coupled Kao’s smooth, connected deposition paths with Ruan’s spiral-like
deposition paths, to form a step-over arrangement that is oriented at a non-
right angle. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1007, 3, 6; Ex. 1003 ¶ 79).
Patent Owner contends that the patterns of Figure 1 are merely
“diagrammatic illustrations of the respective patterns” and Petitioner has not
expressly identified “which line segments shown in Figures 1(a) or (b) might
correspond to either the contour tool path or a non-right angle step-over
arrangement on such a path.” Prelim. Resp. 33, 36–37.
We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not identify
sufficiently what portion of Ruan’s Figure 1, or Ruan in general, discloses a
step-over arrangement. Prelim. Resp. 36–37. Petitioner does not identify,
through credible arguments or citations to evidence, where the contour tool
path and step-over arrangement are found in Figure 1 of Ruan, and we
decline to sift through the record to identify support for such a finding,
unguided by Petitioner. With respect to Ruan’s spiral deposition patterns in
general, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Campbell explains why a spiral path
necessarily discloses or contains a “step-over arrangement.”1 Pet. 44; Ex.
1003 ¶¶ 78–79. As noted supra, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has set
forth sufficient argument or evidence in the Petition to show that Kao
discloses a step-over arrangement, as recited in claim 1. Thus, we are not

1 We note that spiral patterns were before the Examiner during prosecution,
and the claims were allowed over these disclosures. Ex. 1002, MB042–043
(relying upon Figures 7 (D), (E), and (F) of Jang for rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) and § 103(a)); see also 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (noting that the
Director may reject a petition because “the same or substantially the same
prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office”).
IPR2015-00288
Patent 8,349,239 B2

17
persuaded that Petitioner has set forth sufficient argument or evidence in the
Petition to show that either Kao or Ruan discloses a step-over arrangement.
With respect to independent claim 15, Petitioner again asserts that
Kao’s disclosure of a “continuous tool path that may spiral in and which is
continuous . . . teaches the recited element of claim 15 requiring ‘an interior
raster path extending from the contour tool path within the interior region of
the layer.’” Pet. 46–47 (citing Ex. 1005, 115–117). For the reasons
discussed above, we are not persuaded by this argument.
Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 of the ’239 patent would
have been obvious over Kao and Ruan.
E. Obviousness over Kao and Kulkarni
Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 of the ’239
patent would have been obvious over Kao and Kulkarni. Pet. 48–55.
Kulkarni discloses spiral deposition paths that may be laid down in one
continuous motion. Ex. 1006, 95–96. Several of these paths are depicted in
Figures 5 and 6 below:

IPR2015-00288
Patent 8,349,239 B2

18

Figure 5 depicts a variety of spirals; Figures 6(a) and 6(b) respectively
represent an original contour deposition path and a spiral path generated
from this contour path. Id.
Petitioner asserts that the spiral path of Figure 5(a) both eliminates
right angles and provides a “seam crossover where the outer boundary
transitions into the spiral interior.” Pet. 50 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 91). Petitioner
further contends that Kulkarni discloses varying the angle of raster paths in
order to avoid the production of voids and improve product stiffness. Id.
at 51–52.
Patent Owner contends that Figure 5(a) of Kulkarni merely depicts a
“conventional spiral path” and neither Petitioner nor Dr. Campbell otherwise
explains “where the Kulkarni article teaches the non-right angle step-over
arrangement recited in claim 1.” Prelim. Resp. 44. Patent Owner further
contends that Petitioner provides no explanation of how or why Kulkarni’s
disclosure of varying raster pattern angles discloses a non-right angle step-
over arrangement. Id. at 45.
Figure 5(a) of Kulkarni discloses a single contour path and a separate,
disconnected interior spiral deposition path. We agree with Patent Owner
that Petitioner and Dr. Campbell do not explain sufficiently Petitioner’s
argument that this figure discloses a step-over arrangement, i.e., a junction
IPR2015-00288
Patent 8,349,239 B2

19
where the contour tool path steps-over to an interior path. Prelim. Resp. 44
(“From even a cursory review of Fig. 5(a), it is readily apparent that nothing
more than a conventional spiral path is shown.”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 91. We also
agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner provides insufficient explanation as
to why Kulkarni’s disclosure of varying interior raster path angles would
teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art a step-over arrangement.
Id. at 45.
With respect to claim 15, Petitioner again asserts that Kao’s disclosure
of “a continuous tool path that may spiral in and is continuous” represents
“an interior raster path extending from the contour tool path within the
interior region of the layer.” Pet. 54. For the reasons set forth above, we are
not persuaded by this argument.
Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 of the ’239 patent would
have been obvious in view of Kao and Kulkarni.
F. Obviousness over Jang, Kulkarni, and/or Kao
Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 of the ’239
patent would have been obvious over the combination of Jang, Kulkarni,
and/or Kao. Pet. 55–59. Jang discloses a method for continuously
depositing molding material to “form a solid area with few or no path
interruption[s].” Ex. 1009 ¶ 85. Figure 7D of Jang is set forth below:
IPR2015-00288
Patent 8,349,239 B2

20

Figure 7D “shows contour offset dispensing paths.” Id. ¶ 56. In Figure 7D,
a nozzle traces out a first contour path L1 from starting point s1 to ending
point e1. Id. ¶ 85. The nozzle then moves inward to “a second starting point
S2 (slightly different in location from s1 or ‘offset’ from s1) for tracing out
the second path L2, and then off-set to a third starting point S3.” Id.
Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to modify the angle of the step-over arrangement depicted in
Figure 7D of Jang based on either Kao’s disclosure that deposition paths
should be smooth and yield no disconnected patterns or Kulkarni’s
disclosure that raster angles can be modified to limit the production of voids
and improve product stiffness. Pet. 57–58.
We are not persuaded that Petitioner’s explanation of why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined Jang and Kulkarni and/or Kao
is adequate. In particular, it is not evident from Petitioner’s argument or
evidence why one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to design
rules related to Kao’s adaptive-offsetting approach—which has not been
IPR2015-00288
Patent 8,349,239 B2

21
shown to contemplate a step-over arrangement—to reduce the angle of the
step-over arrangement in Jang. Nor is it evident what problem in Jang such
a modification would have solved or overcome, as Figure 7D discloses no
apparent gaps or disconnected entities. It is also not apparent from
Petitioner’s argument why the raster path angles of Kulkarni, and the
problems to be solved related to these angles, are relevant to the step-over
arrangement and spiral path depicted in Jang. Thus, we are not persuaded
that Petitioner has provided sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning
to support the combination of Jang with either Kao or Kulkarni. See KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (requiring “some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness”).
With respect to claim 15, Petitioner contends that, because Kulkarni
teaches that the tool path should be in a spiral or zig-zag pattern, it would
have been obvious to combine “the teaching of Jang [] with Kulkarni [] to
achieve a deposition pattern having a raster path extending from the contour
path.” Pet. 59 (citing Ex. 1006, 98; Ex. 1003 ¶ 112). We are not persuaded
by this argument because, although Kulkarni discloses the use of spiral and
raster deposition patterns, Jang already utilizes one of these patterns (spiral).
Petitioner also does not explain why, based on the disclosures of Jang and
Kulkarni, one of ordinary skill would have used both patterns in the same
tool path. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“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.”).
IPR2015-00288
Patent 8,349,239 B2

22
Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 of the ’239 patent would have been
obvious over Jang, Kulkarni, and/or Kao.
G. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated a
reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to its challenge of claims 1,
2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 of the ’239 patent.
III. ORDER
It is hereby:
ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of
the ’239 patent; and
FURTHER ORDERED that no inter partes review is instituted.

IPR2015-00288
Patent 8,349,239 B2

23
PETITIONER:

William J. Cass
Herbert M. Bedingfield
CANTOR COLBURN LLP
wcass@cantorcolburn.com
hbedingfield@cantorcolburn.com

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

PATENT OWNER:

Walter C. Linder
FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
walter.linder@faegrebd.com