Patent No. 8,796,162
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TIETEX INTERNATIONAL, LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PRECISION FABRICS GROUP, INC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,796,162
`Issue Date: August 5, 2014
`Title: T H E R M A L L Y P R O T E C T I V E
`F L A M E R E T A R D A N T F A B R I C
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET. SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Table of Authorities .................................................................................................. iv
`Listing of Exhibits ...................................................................................................... v
`Notice of Lead and Backup Counsel .......................................................................... 1
`Notice of Each Real-Party-In Interest ......................................................................... 1
`Notice of Related Matters ........................................................................................... 1
`Notice of Service Information .................................................................................... 2
`Certification of Grounds for Standing ........................................................................ 2
`Identification of Challenge ........................................................................................ 2
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested ........................................................................ 2
`Prior Art Relied Upon ................................................................................................ 3
`Specific Grounds of Challenge .................................................................................. 3
`Ground 1. .................................................................................................................... 3
`Ground 2. .................................................................................................................... 3
`Threshold Requirement for Inter Partes Review .......................................................... 3
`Statement of Reasons for Relief Requested ................................................................ 4
`I.
`Background ...................................................................................................... 4
`A.
`Related Patents and Applications ........................................... 4
`B.
`Technical Introduction ........................................................ 5
`Construction of the Claims .............................................................................. 7
`II.
`III. Claim-By-Claim Explanation of Grounds for Invalidity ................................. 8
`Ground 1. .................................................................................................................... 8
`A.
`Independent Claim 1 Is Obvious Over U.S. Patent No.
`6,436,528 (“Külper”) In View Of GB 2293572 (“Rowan”, Ex.
`1005) ............................................................................ 8
`Dependent Claims 2-30 Are Obvious Over 6,436,528
`(“Külper”) In View Of GB 2293572 (“Rowan”, Ex. 1005) ........... 12
`Claims 2-3 ........................................................................................... 12
`Claim 4 ................................................................................................ 12
`Claim 5 ................................................................................................ 13
`Claim 6 ................................................................................................ 13
`Claims 7 and 8 ..................................................................................... 14
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,796,162
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Claims 9 and 10 .................................................................................. 14
`Claims 11 and 12 ................................................................................. 15
`Claim 13 ............................................................................................... 15
`Claims 14 and 15 ................................................................................. 16
`Claims 16 and 17 ................................................................................. 16
`Claims 18 and 19 ................................................................................. 17
`Claim 20 .............................................................................................. 18
`Claims 21-26 ........................................................................................ 18
`Claim 27 ............................................................................................... 19
`Claim 28 .............................................................................................. 20
`Claim 29 .............................................................................................. 21
`Claim 30 .............................................................................................. 21
`Ground 2 ................................................................................................................... 29
`A.
`Independent Claim 1 Is Obvious over U.S. Patent No. 5,912,196
`(“Radwanski”, Ex. 1006) in view of GB 2293572 (“Rowan”,
`Ex. 1005) and U.S. Patent No. 3,934,066 (“Murch”, Ex. 1007) ...... 29
`Dependent Claims 2-30 Are Obvious over U.S. Patent No.
`5,912,196 (“Radwanski”, Ex. 1006) in view of GB 2293572
`(“Rowan”, Ex. 1005) and U.S. Patent No. 3,934,066 (“Murch”,
`Ex. 1007) ..................................................................... 34
`Claims 2 and 3 ..................................................................................... 34
`Claim 4 ................................................................................................ 36
`Claim 5 ................................................................................................ 37
`Claim 6 ................................................................................................ 38
`Claim 7 ................................................................................................ 39
`Claim 8 ................................................................................................ 39
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................ 40
`Claim 10 .............................................................................................. 40
`Claim 11 .............................................................................................. 41
`Claim 12 ............................................................................................... 42
`Claim 13 .............................................................................................. 42
`Claim 14 .............................................................................................. 43
`ii
`
`B.
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,796,162
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Claim 15 .............................................................................................. 44
`Claim 16 .............................................................................................. 45
`Claim 17 .............................................................................................. 45
`Claim 18 .............................................................................................. 46
`Claim 19 .............................................................................................. 47
`Claim 20 .............................................................................................. 47
`Claims 21-26 ........................................................................................ 48
`Claim 27 .............................................................................................. 49
`Claim 28 .............................................................................................. 50
`Claim 29 .............................................................................................. 51
`Claim 30 .............................................................................................. 52
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,796,162
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc.,
`909 F.2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1990) .......................................................................... 35
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`Precision Fabrics Group, Inc., v. Tietex International, Ltd.,
`1:13-cv-00645 (M.D. NC) .................................................................................... 1
`
`Precision Fabrics Group, Inc., v. Tietex International, Ltd.,
`1:14-cv-00650 (M.D. NC) .................................................................................... 1
`
`In re Schreiber,
`128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 35
`
`Statutes
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`35 U.S.C. 102(e) ........................................................................................................ 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Rule 42.104(a) ............................................................................................................ 2
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,934,066 ........................................................................ 3, 29, 32, 34
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,912,196 ........................................................................ 3, 29, 30, 34
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,436,528 ...................................................................................... 3, 8
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,150,059 ...................................................................................... 4, 5
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,796,162 .................................................................................passim
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,796,162
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001
`
`U.S. Patent 8,796,162
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Declaration of Brian Callaway
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. A. Richard Horrocks
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`Külper U.S. Patent 6,436,528
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`Rowan U.K. Patent Application 2,293,572
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`Radwanski U.S. Patent 5,912,196
`
`Exhibit 1007
`
`Murch U.S. Patent 3,934,066
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`Decision on Appeal
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL
`
`Lead Counsel: Neil C. Jones (Registration No. 35,561)
`
`Backup Counsel: James M. Robertson (Registration No. 36,905)
`
`NOTICE OF EACH REAL-PARTY-IN INTEREST
`
`Tietex International, LTD. (“Petitioner”) is the real-party-in-interest and
`
`submits this Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition”) for review of claims 1-30,
`
`the challenged claims, of U.S. Patent No. 8,796,162 (the “ˈ162 patent ”, Ex. 1001).
`
`NOTICE OF RELATED MATTERS
`
`The following litigation matters would affect or could be affected by a
`
`decision in this proceeding: Inter Partes review No. 2014-01248 styled Tietex
`
`International, Ltd. v. Precision Fabrics Group, Inc. instituted as to all claims in
`
`related US Patent 8,501,639 and currently in the discovery period before this
`
`Board; Precision Fabrics Group, Inc., v. Tietex International, Ltd., Civil Action
`
`1:14-cv-00650 (M.D. NC.) wherein the ˈ162 patent has been asserted against
`
`Petitioner which has been consolidated with Precision Fabrics Group, Inc., v.
`
`Tietex International, Ltd., Civil Action 1:13-cv-00645 (M.D. NC.) wherein
`
`related patent 8,501,639 has been asserted against Petitioner.
`
`The following administrative matters would affect or could be affected by a
`
`decision in this proceeding: United States Patent Applications 13/592,608;
`
`13/690,294; 14/450,834 and newly filed application Attorney Docket No. 9305-
`
`1
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,796,162
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`12TSDVCT2 (Application number not yet available on PAIR) are all pending
`
`and each claims the benefit of United States Patent Application 12/172,681
`
`which eventuated as the ˈ162 patent.
`
`NOTICE OF SERVICE INFORMATION
`
`Please address all correspondence to the lead counsel at the following:
`
`Email: Neil.Jones@nelsonmullins.com
`
`Post and hand delivery address: Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP
`
`104 South Main Street, Greenville, SC 29601
`
`Telephone: 864-250-2300
`
`
`
`Facsimile: 864-232-2925
`
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner hereby certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for Inter Partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or stopped from requesting an Inter Partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in the petition.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`The Petitioner respectfully requests that the challenged claims 1-30 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,796,162 be cancelled as being invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,796,162
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`PRIOR ART RELIED UPON
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,436,528 (“Külper”, Ex. 1004)
`
`GB 2293572 (“Rowan”, Ex. 1005)
`
`U.S. Patent 5,912,196 (“Radwanski”, Ex. 1006)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,934,066 (“Murch”, Ex. 1007)
`
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE
`
`Ground 1. Claims 1-30 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S.
`
`Patent 6,436,528 (“Külper”, Ex. 1004) in view of GB 2293572 (“Rowan”, Ex.
`
`1005).
`
`Ground 2. Claims 1-30 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,912,196 (“Radwanski”, Ex. 1006) in view of GB 2293572
`
`(“Rowan” Ex. 1005) and U.S. Patent No. 3,934,066 (“Murch”, Ex. 1007).
`
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`A petition for inter partes review must demonstrate “a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Attached to this petition is a
`
`declaration from Mr. Brian Callaway (“Callaway Decl.”, Ex. 1002). Mr. Callaway
`
`is an experienced textile engineer and is a named inventor on numerous patents in
`
`the field of non-woven textiles. For more than 30 years, Mr. Callaway worked in
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,796,162
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`the textile industry with particular emphasis on the development of new knitted and
`
`stitch-bonded products. Through his education and extensive work experience, Mr.
`
`Callaway also gained familiarity with treatments to render non-woven textiles flame
`
`retardant. Also attached to this petition is a declaration from Dr. A. Richard
`
`Horrocks from the University of Bolton in England (“Horrocks Decl.”, Ex. 1003)
`
`Dr. Horrocks is a recognized authority on flame retardant textiles who confirms
`
`the conclusions of obviousness reached by Mr. Callaway. The combined
`
`declarations from Mr. Callaway and Dr. Horrocks overwhelmingly support the
`
`grounds in this petition showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`will prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims and that each
`
`challenged claim is not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`A. Related Patents and Applications
`
`The ˈ162 patent and its corresponding application No. 12/172,681 are part
`
`of a family of related applications. The ˈ162 patent is subject to a terminal
`
`disclaimer relative to US Patent 8,501,639 (Inter Partes review No. 2014-01248
`
`IPR Instituted). US patent 8,501,639 eventuated from Application No.
`
`13/290,427 which was a continuation of Application No. 12/172,681. United
`
`States Patent Applications 13/592,608; 13/690,294; and 14/450,834 and newly
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,796,162
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`filed application Attorney Docket No. 9305-12TSDVCT2 (Application number
`
`not yet available on PAIR) are all pending and each claims the benefit of United
`
`States Patent Application 12/172,681, which eventuated as the ˈ162 patent.
`
`B.
`
`Technical Introduction
`
`In the decision instituting Inter Partes review No. 2014-01248 relative to
`
`related US Patent 8,501,639, this Board previously provided an overview of the
`
`technical subject matter of that patent. Since US Patent 8,501,639 and the ˈ162
`
`patent have identical descriptive content, the prior overview by this Board
`
`relative to US Patent 8,501,639 is likewise applicable to the ˈ162 patent. The
`
`ˈ162 patent is directed to lightweight fabrics that are intended to provide protection
`
`from heat, flame, and electrical arc. ( ˈ162 patent, Ex. 1001, 1:16–20). The
`
`fabric comprises “a substrate treated with a combination of a flame retardant
`
`agent and an intumescent agent.” ( Id. at 3:58-67). The ˈ162 patent lists a
`
`number of commercially-available flame retardants that can be used in the
`
`claimed fabric. ( Id. at 6:1-15; 6:50 – 7:23 (Table 2)). The ˈ162 patent also
`
`describes that a thermal barrier is provided by an intumescent finish that chars
`
`and swells upon contact with a flame, and likewise lists a number of
`
`commercially-available intumescent finishes that can be used in the claimed
`
`fabric. ( Id. at 7:24–27, 7:50–64 (Table 3)).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,796,162
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Petitioner further notes that under the heading labeled “BACKGROUND OF
`
`THE INVENTION”, the ˈ162 patent recites that coatings used to absorb heat have
`
`been formed from one or more intumescent compounds. (Id. at 1:52-53). The
`
`ˈ162 patent also states that intumescent compounds have been used with only
`
`limited success in the field of textiles. (Id. at 1:60-61). Accordingly, the
`
`patentees themselves in the BACKGROUND section of the ˈ162 patent
`
`acknowledge that intumescent compounds were known and had been used with at
`
`least a limited degree of success in the field of textiles prior to any alleged
`
`invention here.
`
`The BACKGROUND section of the ˈ162 patent also explains that at the
`
`time the application was filed, the most prevalent fabrics in the thermally
`
`protective garment market were aramids and flame retardant cotton, (Id. at 3:8-10)
`
`and that it was known that aramid fabrics were available in a variety of weights
`
`and could be blended with other fibers to reduce cost. (Id. at 3:25-29).
`
`The technology of the challenged claims 1-30 of the ˈ162 patent was the
`
`result of the combination of two well-known and commercially available
`
`components (i.e. known, off-the-shelf intumescent finishes such as those listed in
`
`Table 3 of the written description and known stitch-bonded fabrics containing
`
`blends of well-known fibers) resulting in a fully predictable flame retardant
`
`product. (“Callaway Decl.”, Ex. 1002 at ¶ 50; “Horrocks Decl.”, Ex. 1003 at ¶
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,796,162
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`46). The specification of the ˈ162 patent does not teach any unique stitch-bonding
`
`practices or any special treatment conditions necessary to realize the benefits of
`
`the claimed combination. (“Callaway Decl.”, Ex. 1002, ¶ 52; “Horrocks Decl.”,
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ 52).
`
`II. Construction of the Claims
`
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification” See, 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The claims of the ˈ162
`
`use the same terminology as the claims in related US patent 8,501,639 which is the
`
`subject of previously instituted Inter Partes review No. 2014-01248 Accordingly,
`
`Petitioner advocates that for purposes of this proceeding, the same definitions
`
`should apply.
`
`For purposes of this proceeding, the term “intumescent,” as set forth in
`
`the sole independent claim should be interpreted to mean “a substance that swells
`
`and chars upon exposure to heat or flame.” In this proceeding, the claim term
`
`“thermal protective performance value” or “TPP” is defined in the specification
`
`through reference to test method NFPA1971 Standard on Protective Ensemble for
`
`Structural Fire Fighting, Section 6-10. (‘162 patent, Ex. 1001, col. 1: 63- col. 2:31).
`
`In this proceeding, the claim term “thermal protective performance efficiency” is
`
`defined in the specification as TPP/weight. (‘162 patent, Ex. 1001, col. 2:56-57).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,796,162
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`In this proceeding, all other patent claim terms are presumed to take on their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`III. Claim-By-Claim Explanation of Grounds for Invalidity
`
`Ground 1. Claims 1-30 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S.
`Patent No. 6,436,528 (“Külper”, Ex.1004) and GB 2293572
`(“Rowan”, Ex. 1005)
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claim 1 Is Obvious Over U.S. Patent No. 6,436,528
`(“Külper”, Ex. 1004) In View Of GB 2293572 (“Rowan”, Ex.
`1005)
`
`
`U.S. Patent 6,436,528 (“Külper”, Ex. 1004) discloses a non-woven substrate
`
`material for use in construction of a tape.1 The ˈ162 patent teaches that “many
`
`devices and components may be constructed from the material of the present
`
`invention. As used herein, ‘constructed from’ means made from exclusively or in
`
`combination with other materials.” (Ex. 1001 at 1:60-61). Thus, “Külper” is
`
`analogous art which may be used in considering the validity of the ˈ162 patent.
`
`“Külper” discloses that stitch-bonded webs are suitable for forming the
`
`substrate material. (“Külper”, Ex. 1004 at 3:13-21). In “Külper”, the starting
`
`materials for the textile are disclosed to be polyester fibers, polypropylene fibers,
`
`viscose (i.e. rayon) fibers or cotton fibers. (Ex. 1004 at 3:22-28). Thus, “Külper”,
`
`discloses the use of polyester and cellulosic fibers. “Külper” further discloses that
`
`
`1 .
`“Külper”, Ex. 1004 qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,796,162
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`the textile web may be flameproofed by the addition of phosphorus-containing
`
`flame retardants such as ammonium polyphosphate and or/the selection of suitable
`
`fibers of low or zero flammability. (Ex. 1004 at 5:47-52). Aramid fibers are well
`
`known fibers of low or zero flammability which are often incorporated into fiber
`
`webs. (“Callaway Decl.”, Ex. 1002 at ¶ 73; “Horrocks Decl.”, Ex. 1003 at ¶
`
`59). “Külper” further discloses a preferred embodiment for the textile web in
`
`which the web has a weight of from 50 g/m2 to 500 g/m2 which equates to 1.47 to
`
`14.7 ounces per square yard with a thickness of from 100 µm to 3000 µm which
`
`equates to 0.0039 to 0.117 inches. (Ex. 1004 at 5:31-36).
`
`Accordingly, “Külper”, Ex. 1004, discloses a single layer of a non-woven,
`
`stitch bonded substrate containing cellulosic fibers and/or polyester fibers in
`
`combination with fibers of low or zero flammability having a basis weight within
`
`the range of from 2.0 to 15 ounces per square yard and having a thickness within
`
`the range of from 0.1 and 0.15 inch, wherein the non-woven substrate is treated
`
`with a flame retardant finish comprising phosphorus and/or nitrogen.
`
`“Rowan”, Ex. 1005 discloses application of the exact phosphorus-containing
`
`intumescent finish as defined by the ˈ162 patent to a non-woven fabric for fire and
`
`heat resistance. (Ex. 1005, p.8:5-10). (“Horrocks Decl.”, Ex. 1003 at ¶ 61).
`
`“Rowan”, Ex. 1005 also discloses that the fabric may be a stitch-bonded
`
`fabric: “Generally, any of the conventional techniques of fabric production may be
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,796,162
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`employed to produce the fabric of the present invention, including weaving,
`
`knitting, needle punching, stitch bonding and adhesive bonding.” (“Rowan”, Ex.
`
`1005, pp. 7:26 - 8:4). (“Callaway Decl.”, Ex. 1002 at ¶ 78; “Horrocks Decl.”,
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ 53).
`
` “Rowan”, Ex. 1005 discloses that the non-woven fabric treated with
`
`intumescent may incorporate a cellulosic organic fiber component as follows:
`
`“The organic fibres may comprises[sic] a flame-retarded cotton viscose or wool
`
`fibre.” (Ex. 1005, p.5:6-8).
`
`“Rowan” Ex. 1005, also discloses that the non-woven fabric treated with
`
`intumescent may incorporate an aramid fiber component as follows: “Where
`
`incompatible organic fibres are employed, these may be novoloid or polyaramid
`
`fibres.” (“Rowan”, p.9: 19-21). “Rowan” thus discloses a single layer, non-
`
`woven, stitch-bonded, substrate (FIG. 1) containing cellulosic (i.e. Rayon) fibers
`
`and aramid fibers treated with an intumescent flame retardant finish comprising
`
`phosphorous compounds. (“Callaway Decl.”, Ex. 1002, ¶ 81; “Horrocks Decl.”,
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ 63).
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would properly combine the teachings of
`
`“Külper”, Ex. 1004 and “Rowan”, Ex. 1005, because both disclose non-woven,
`
`stitch-bonded, cellulose-containing webs that may include fibers of low or zero
`
`flammability and which are coated with phosphorus-containing flame retardants
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,796,162
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`for heat and flame resistance. (“Callaway Decl.”, Ex. 1002 at ¶ 82; “Horrocks
`
`Decl.”, Ex. 1003 at ¶ 63).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to utilize
`
`in “Külper”, Ex. 1004 a single layer non-woven substrate containing cellulosic
`
`fibers and polyester fibers and fibers of low or zero flammability and coated with a
`
`phosphorus-containing flame retardant and having a basis weight within the range
`
`of 2.0 to 15.0 ounces per square yard, and having a thickness within the range of
`
`from 0.1 and 0.15 inch and wherein the non-woven substrate is a non-woven stitch-
`
`bonded substrate all as taught by “Külper”, Ex. 1004, and wherein the fibers of low
`
`or zero flammability are aramid fibers and wherein the phosphorus-containing
`
`flame retardant is an intumescent phosphorus-containing finish, based on the
`
`teaching in “Rowan”, Ex. 1005 to use aramid fibers in combination with cellulosic
`
`fibers and to use intumescent finishes on stitch-bonded fabrics containing cellulose
`
`and aramid fibers for heat and fire resistance. This combination results in the
`
`construction recited in claim 1. (“Callaway Decl.”, Ex. 1002, ¶ 83; Horrocks
`
`Decl.”, Ex. 1003 at ¶ 64).
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,796,162
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Claims 2-3
`
`B. Dependent Claims 2-30 Are Obvious Over 6,436,528 (“Külper”,
`Ex. 1004) In View Of GB 2293572 (“Rowan”, Ex. 1005)
`
`During prosecution of the ˈ162 patent, the Board of Patent Appeals and
`
`Interferences previously concluded in Appeal No. 2011-001870 that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to construct a flame
`
`retardant, intumescent fabric in accordance with the teachings of the prior art
`
`with a thermal protective performance value of at least 4.5. (“USPTO Appeal
`
`Decision”, Ex. 1008, p.3:17 through p.4:2). Both 6.5 and 9.0 are at least 4.5.
`
`Accordingly, the recital of TPP levels in claims 2 and 3 lends no
`
`independent patentable weight.
`
`Claim 4
`
`Contact thermal protective performance efficiency is defined in the '162
`
`patent as TPP/weight. (Ex. 1001, at 2:56-57). Using a TPP value of at least 4.5, as
`
`found by the Board of Appeals to be obvious, and a basis weight within the range
`
`of 1.5 to 4 ounces per square yard which is within the range as taught by “Külper”
`
`will result in a thermal protective performance efficiency of greater than 1.1.
`
`Thus, the claimed invention is merely the result of combining prior art elements
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results. (“Callaway Decl.”, Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 91; “Horrocks Decl.”, Ex. 1003 at ¶ 72).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,796,162
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Claim 5
`
`As discussed above in relation to Claim 1, “Külper” discloses a web weight
`
`of 50 to 500 g/m2 which equates to 1.47 to 14.7 ounces per square yard. (“Külper”,
`
`Ex. 1004 at 5:32-35). The combination of “Külper” and “Rowan” teaches all the
`
`limitations of claim 5, thus making the claimed invention of claim 5 obvious. The
`
`claimed invention is merely the result of combining prior art elements according
`
`to known methods a s a m a t t e r o f r o u t i n e d e s i g n c h o i c e to yield
`
`f u l l y predictable results based on a motivation to provide desired heat and flame
`
`resistance for a known weight. (“Callaway Decl.”, Ex. 1002, ¶ 93; Horrocks
`
`Decl.”, Ex. 1003 at ¶ 73).
`
`
`
`Claim 6
`
`As found by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have found it obvious to construct a flame retardant,
`
`intumescent fabric in accordance with the teachings of the prior art with a thermal
`
`protective performance value of at least 4.5 (“USPTO Appeal Decision”, Ex. 1008,
`
`p.3:17- p.4:2), thus making a thermal protective performance value of at least 4.5
`
`obvious. In this regard, the claimed invention is merely the result of combining
`
`prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
`
`(“Callaway Decl.”, Ex. 1002, ¶ 95; “Horrocks Decl.”, Ex. 1003 at ¶ 74).
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,796,162
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
` Claims 7 and 8
`
`As discussed above in relation to Claim 1, “Külper” discloses a web
`
`thickness of from 100 to 3000 µm which equates to 0.0039 to 0.117 inches.
`
`(“Külper”, Ex. 1004 at 5:32-36). This disclosed thickness range includes values
`
`within the claimed ranges of claims 7 and 8. Thus, the claimed invention of
`
`claims 7 and 8 is merely the result of combining prior art elements according to
`
`known methods a s a m a t t e r o f r o u t i n e d e s i g n c h o i c e to yield f u l l y
`
`predictable results based on a motivation to provide desired heat and flame
`
`resistance for a known thickness. (“Callaway Decl.”, Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 97, 99;
`
`“Horrocks Decl.”, Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 75, 76).
`
`
`
`Claims 9 and 10
`
`As addressed above in relation to claim 1, “Külper” discloses basis weights
`
`for the non-woven web of 50 grams per square meter to 500 grams per square
`
`meter, which equates to 1.5 to 14.7 ounces per square yard thereby including
`
`values within the claimed ranges. Accordingly, the combination of “Külper” and
`
`“Rowan” teaches all the limitations of claims 9 and 10, thus making the claimed
`
`invention of claims 9 and 10 obvious. In this regard, the claimed invention is
`
`merely the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods
`
`a s a m a t t e r o f r o u t i n e d e s i g n c h o i c e to yield f u l l y predictable
`
`results based on a motivation to provide desired heat and flame resistance for a
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,796,162
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`known basis weight. (“Callaway Decl.”, Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 101,103; “Horrocks
`
`Decl.”, Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 77, 78).
`
`
`
`Claims 11 and 12
`
`“Külper” specifically discloses the use of cotton and rayon fibers: “Starting
`
`materials envisaged for the textile backing are, in particular, polyester fibres,
`
`polypropylene fibres, viscose fibres or cotton fibres.” (Ex. 1004 at 3:22-24).
`
`Viscose is a type of rayon. (“Callaway Decl.”, Ex. 1002, ¶ 105). Thus, the
`
`claimed subject matter of claims 11 and 12 is merely the result of combining prior
`
`art elements according to known methods a s a m a t t e r o f r o u t i n e
`
`d e s i g n c h o i c e to yield f u l l y predictable results based on a motivation to
`
`provide desired heat and flame resistance for known fibers. (“Callaway Decl.”, Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶ 106, 109; “Horrocks Decl.”, Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 79, 80).
`
`Claim 13
`
`Lyocell and viscose are both well known rayon fibers and Külper”
`
`specifically discloses the use of viscose rayon fibers. (Ex. 1004 at 3:22-24). The
`
`ability to use lyocell as a functional equivalent for viscose would be well
`
`understood by one of skill in the art. (“Callaway Decl.”, Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 111, 112;
`
`“Horrocks Decl.”, Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 82, 83).
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,796,162
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Claims 14 and 15
`
`Claim 14 depends from claim 1 and recites “a protective garment
`
`constructed from the fabric claimed in claim 1.” Claim 15 depends from claim 14
`
`and recites that the protective garment is chosen from fire re