UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`KSP Co. LTD
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GUALA PACK S.P.A,
`Patent Owner
`__________
`
`IP Case No. IPR2016-01065
`Patent 8,528,757
`__________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,528,757
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,757
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`B. 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW ............................................................................... 1 
`Certification The 8,528,757 Patent May Be Contested By
`A. 
`Petitioner ............................................................................................... 1 
`Fee For Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) and §
`42.103) ................................................................................................... 1 
`C.  Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. §42.8) ................................................... 1 
`1. 
`Real Parties-In-Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1)) ........................................ 1 
`2. 
`Related Matters (§ 42.8 (b)(2)) ................................................... 1 
`3. 
`Lead And Backup Counsel (§ 42.8(b)(3)) .................................. 2 
`Service Information (§ 42.8(b)(4)) ........................................................ 2 
`D. 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED (§
`42.104(B)) ........................................................................................................ 3 
`A.  Grounds Establishing Unpatentability .................................................. 3 
`B. 
`Redundancy of Grounds ........................................................................ 4 
`III.  RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ‘757 PATENT .......... 5 
`A. 
`Subject Matter Of The ’757 Patent ....................................................... 5 
`1. 
`Technology Described In The ‘757 Patent ................................. 5 
`State of the Technology at the Time the ‘757 Patent was Filed ........... 6 
`The ‘757 Patent’s Effective Filing Date And Prosecution
`History ................................................................................................. 10 
`The Claims Of The ‘757 Patent ........................................................... 13 
`D. 
`Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ................................................... 18 
`E. 
`How The Challenged Claims Are To Be Construed ........................... 18 
`F. 
`IV.  PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED .................................... 19 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1-3 and 10 are Rendered Obvious by Julian ......... 20 
`1. 
`Overview of Julian .................................................................... 20 
`2. 
`Independent Claim 1 is Rendered Obvious by Julian ............... 21 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,757
`
`Dependent Claims 2-3 and 10 ................................................... 29 
`3. 
`B.  Ground 2: Claims 1-3 and 10 are Rendered Obvious by Julian
`in Light of Marshall ............................................................................. 31 
`1. 
`Overview of Marshall ............................................................... 31 
`2.  Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 32 
`3. 
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 35 
`4. 
`Dependent Claims 2-3 and 10 ................................................... 36 
`C.  Ground 3: Claims 4-9 are Rendered Obvious by Julian in Light
`of Marshall and Further in Light of Tacchella .................................... 37 
`1. 
`Tacchella Overview .................................................................. 37 
`2.  Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 37 
`3. 
`Dependent Claims 4-9 ............................................................... 38 
`D.  Ground 4: Claims 11-12 are Rendered Obvious by Julian in
`Light of Marshall and Further in Light of Vaughan ........................... 44 
`1. 
`Vaughan Overview ................................................................... 44 
`2.  Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 45 
`3. 
`Dependent Claims 11-12 ........................................................... 48 
`Ground 5: Claims 13-16 are Rendered Obvious by Julian in
`Light of Marshall and further in Light of Kimura .............................. 50 
`1. 
`Kimura Overview ...................................................................... 50 
`1.  Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 51 
`Independent Claims 13 and 15 are rendered obvious by
`2. 
`the combination of Julian in light of Marshall and in light
`of Kimura .................................................................................. 51 
`3. 
`Dependent Claims ..................................................................... 70 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 73 
`
`E. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,757
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 19
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Tech
`778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 18
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 33
`
`In re Paulsen
`30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 18
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 18
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ...........................................................................20, 31, 36, 44, 49
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................... 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................................................................................. 3, 11, 36
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................. 11, 12
`
`Other Authorities
`
`21 C.F.R § 211.132 .................................................................................................... 7
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a) ......................................................................... 74
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) and § 42.103) ........................................................................... 1
`
`37 CFR § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................. 18
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756 .................................................................................................. 19
`
`Attachment A: Proof of Service of the Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,757
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`1002
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,528,757
`Complaint
`
`Priority/Date
`June 15, 2007
`
`
`Identifier
`’757 Patent
`Cheer Pack’s
`Litigation
`Complaint
`Julian
`October 15, 1991
`December 29, 1998 Marshall
`December 24, 2002 Tacchella
`
`January 20, 2005
`
`Vaughan
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016-
`1050
`1051
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,056,675
`U.S. Patent No. 5,853,095
`U.S. Design Patent No.
`467,501
`U.S. Patent Application
`2005/0011911
`Kimura
`U.S. Patent No. 4,669,124 May 26, 1987
`Wilde
`U.S. Patent No. 4,545,496
`October 8, 1995
`U.S. Patent No. 4,305,516
`December 15, 1981 Perne
`U.S. Patent No. 4,813,562 March 21, 1989
`Begley
`U.S. Patent No. 6,202,871 March 20, 2001
`Kelly
`U.S. Patent Application
`March 2, 2006
`Lee
`2006/0043056
`U.S. Patent No. 5,716,152
`FDA Compliance Policy
`Guides Section 450.500
`Tamper Resistant Packaging
`Requirements
`File History for U.S. Patent
`No. 8,528,757
`Reserved for Future Use
`
`February 20, 1998 Kudo
`Revised May 21,
`FDA Tamper
`1992
`Resistant
`Packaging
`Guidance
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Howard
`Leary in Support of Petition
`for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,757
`
`I.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A. Certification The 8,528,757 Patent May Be Contested By
`Petitioner
`
`Petitioner certifies that (i) U.S. Patent No. 8,528,757 (“the ’757 Patent”) (Ex.
`
`1001) is available for IPR; and (ii) Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting inter partes review of the claims of the `757 Patent on the grounds
`
`identified in this Petition.
`
`Fee For Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) and § 42.103)
`
`B.
`Petitioner paid the required fees upon filing. The Office is authorized to
`
`charge any fee deficiency, or credit any overpayment, to Deposit Account No. 04-
`
`1073.
`
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. §42.8)
`1.
`Real Parties-In-Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real party-in-interest is KSP Co. LTD (“Petitioner” or “KSP”).
`
`2.
`
`Related Matters (§ 42.8 (b)(2))
`
`The present IPR is part of a patent dispute between KSP and the Patent
`
`Owner Cheer Pack North America (“PO”). On December 2, 2014, Cheer Pack
`
`sued KSP for patent infringement. (Ex. 1002, Cheer Pack North America v. KSP
`
`Co. LTD., Eastern District of Michigan Case No. 2:14-cv-14553-GER-MKM.)
`
`Cheer Pack served KSP with the complaint on May 20, 2015. On June 26, 2015,
`
`Cheer Pack filed an amended complaint naming American Special Packaging, Inc.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,757
`
`as a separate defendant in the litigation. Currently pending before the district court
`
`is KSP’s motion to dismiss Cheer Pack’s complaint for lack of personal
`
`jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to transfer the litigation to the Central District of
`
`California.
`
`3.
`
`Lead And Backup Counsel (§ 42.8(b)(3))
`
`KSP appoints the attorneys identified below as Lead and Back-Up Counsel.
`
`An appropriate Power of Attorney is filed concurrently herewith.
`
`Lead Counsel
`Stephen S. Korniczky (Reg. No. 34,853)
`skorniczky@sheppardmullin.com
`SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER &
`HAMPTON LLP
`12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Tel.: (858) 720-8900
`Fax: (858) 509-3691
`
`Backup Counsel
`Martin R. Bader (Reg. No. 54,736)
`mbader@sheppardmullin.com
`Jesse A. Salen (Reg. No. 72,209)
`jsalen@sheppardmullin.com
`SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER &
`HAMPTON LLP
`12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Tel.: (858) 720-8900
`Fax: (858) 509-3691
`
`
`
`
`Service Information (§ 42.8(b)(4))
`
`D.
`Service of any documents via hand-delivery may be made at the postal
`
`mailing address of the respective lead or back-up counsel designated above.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service by e-mail at the e-mail addresses of Lead
`
`and Back-Up Counsel listed above and LegalTm-KSP-IPRs@sheppardmullin.com.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,757
`
`II.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED
`(§ 42.104(B))
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1-16 of the ’757 Patent,
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §103, because would have been obvious as of the priority
`
`date of the ’757 Patent in view of one or more combinations of the following
`
`references: (i) U.S. Patent No. 5,056,675 to Julian (“Julian”); (ii) U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,853,095 to Marshall, et al. (“Marshall”); (iii) U.S. Design Patent No. D467,501
`
`to Tacchella (“Tacchella”); (iv) U.S. Patent Application 2005/0011911 to Vaughan
`
`(“Vaughan”); and (iv) U.S. Patent No. 4,669,124 to Kimura (“Kimura”).
`
`A. Grounds Establishing Unpatentability
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3 and 10 are rendered obvious by Julian under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. §103.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-3 and 10 are rendered obvious by Julian in combination
`
`with Marshall under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 4-9 are rendered obvious by Julian in combination with
`
`Tacchella and Marshall under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103.
`
`Ground 4: Claims 11-12 are rendered obvious by Julian in combination
`
`with Vaughan and Marshall under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103.
`
`Ground 5: Claims 13-16 are rendered obvious by Julian in combination
`
`with Kimura and Marshall under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103.
`
`For the reasons set forth herein, there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,757
`
`Petitioner will prevail in establishing that at least one of Claims 1-16 are
`
`unpatentable based on Grounds 1-5.
`
`B. Redundancy of Grounds
`Petitioner asserts that Julian alone and in combination with Marshall renders
`
`claims 1-3 and 10 obvious. The Board should consider both grounds. Julian, was
`
`not considered during the prosecution of the ’757 Patent and discloses or renders
`
`obvious all of the elements of claim 1 under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`However, with respect to claim element 1b, Julian does explicitly disclose a tamper
`
`indicating band with more than one guarantee portion. Instead, Julian renders this
`
`limitation obvious because, as discussed in more detail below, Julian discloses a
`
`cap with a tamper indicating band that may be divided into a plurality of portions.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner maintains that Julian renders claim 1 obvious.
`
`To the extent that the Board construes claim element 1b’s recitation of “a
`
`plurality of guarantee portions” to preclude a single tamper indicating band that
`
`may be divided into a plurality of portions, as disclosed by Julian, Petitioner offers
`
`an alternate obviousness ground based on the combination of Julian and Marshall.
`
`As discussed below, Marshall, explicitly discloses a plurality of guarantee portions
`
`and was cited by the PTO in the prosecution of the ’757 Patent as rendering
`
`obvious “the teaching of a guarantee seal having a plurality of guarantee portions
`
`with at least one bridge connecting adjacent guarantee portions, and a safety
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,757
`
`portion making the engagement portion integral with the handling portion.” (Ex.
`
`1015 at 141-142.)
`
`
`
`III. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ’757 PATENT
`A.
`Subject Matter Of The ’757 Patent
`1.
`
`Technology Described In The ’757 Patent
`
`The ’757 Patent is directed to a cap with a guarantee seal. The guarantee
`
`seal acts as a tamper indicating band. The guarantee seal has guarantee portions,
`
`which are further subdivided into an engagement portion 24 and a connecting
`
`portion 28. (Ex. 1001 at Abstract; 3:27-34.) The connecting portion of the
`
`guarantee seal is connected to the cap through connecting elements 30. (Id.) The
`
`engagement portion of the guarantee seal is connected to the cap through a non-
`
`frangible safety portion 34. (Id.) This safety portion does not break when the cap
`
`is rotated and acts to retain the guarantee seal after the seal has been broken by
`
`rotation. (Ex. 1001 at Fig. 1; 3:40-43.)
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,757
`
`(Ex. 1001 at Fig. 1.)
`
`
`
`The force for deforming and breaking the frangible webs comes from the
`
`interaction of an engagement element interacting with resistant elements located on
`
`the container. (Ex. 1001 at 1:59-65.) The engagement elements contact the
`
`resistant elements, which prevent rotation of the cap until sufficient force is used to
`
`cause deformation of the guarantee seal and rupture of the frangible webs. (Id.)
`
`State of the Technology at the Time the ’757 Patent was Filed
`
`B.
` Products incorporating guarantee seal technology were well known as of
`
`the ’757 Patent’s alleged priority date. For example, breakable cap technology,
`
`similar to the technology disclosed in the ’757 Patent, was recited in Food and
`
`Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulations as early as November 5, 1982 to protect
`
`Over the Counter (OTC) drug products. (See Ex. 1014; see also 21 C.F.R §
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,757
`
`211.132.) Specifically, FDA regulations disclosed sealing a container “by a plastic
`
`or metal cap that either breaks away completely when removed from the container
`
`or leaves part of the cap attached to the container. The cap, or a portion thereof,
`
`must be broken in order to open the container and remove the product. The cap
`
`cannot be reapplied in its original state.” (Id.)
`
`Indeed, the ’757 Patent itself acknowledges that “caps with guarantee seal[s
`
`had] become widespread since they allow the consumer to ensure that the container
`
`has not been already opened or tampered.” (Ex. 1001, 1:18-21.) This technology
`
`was particularly applicable to the protection of “pastes or liquids, for example fruit
`
`juices,” against the introduction of undesired substances. (Id., 1:21-26.) For
`
`product caps known at the time, “once the cap is unscrewed the guarantee seal
`
`breaks into a set of portions that remain associated to the cap body, so the
`
`possibility that such portions are swallowed by the children should be substantially
`
`prevented. (Id., 34-38.)
`
`As discussed in more detail infra, U.S. Patent No. 5,056,675 to Julian
`
`(“Julian”), entitled, “Tether Web Ratchet Drive Tamper Indicating Band Closure"
`
`discloses guarantee seal technology that was available as of the alleged priority
`
`date of the ’757 Patent. Julian was filed January 18, 1991 and issued October 15,
`
`1991. (Ex. 1003.) Julian is directed towards a "tamper indicating" cap with an
`
`internally threaded skirt. The tamper resistant cap includes a safety portion that is
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,757
`
`designed to deform when the cap is twisted open, but that remains attached to the
`
`cap. Figure 7 from Julian illustrating this guarantee seal technology is shown
`
`below.
`
`(Ex. 1003, Julian, Fig. 7.)
`
`
`
`Similarly, caps where the handling portion was extended outside of the
`
`guarantee seal were well known in the art as of the alleged priority date of the ’757
`
`Patent. For example, the original Patent Owner previously disclosed a cap design
`
`very similar to the design disclosed in the ’757 Patent in U.S. Design Patent No.
`
`D467,501 (“Tacchella”). Tacchella was filed December 24, 2002, nearly four and
`
`a half years before the Patent Owner filed its PCT application. Figures 1 and 2
`
`from Tacchella are shown below illustrating top and bottom views of the guarantee
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`seal cap.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,757
`
`(Ex. 1005, Tacchella, Figs. 1 and 2.)
`
`
`
`Safety features in container caps designed to minimize the risk of choking
`
`on a removed cap were also well known as of the alleged priority date of the ‘757
`
`Patent. For example, the risk of an infant choking on a loose cap was addressed in
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,716,152 to Kudo, which was filed on February 11, 1997 and
`
`issued February 10, 1998. (See Ex. 1013, “Kudo”.) Specifically, Kudo discloses a
`
`pen cap designed with “two longitudinal grooves [41] extending continuously in
`
`parallel from the cap head portion toward the opening portion” and an “air flow
`
`gap” to mitigate the risk of chocking “in the event an infant for example should
`
`swallow the cap.” (Id., 2:58-65.) The same safety issue was addressed in the
`
`context of container caps by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0011911 to
`
`Vaughan, which was filed July 9, 2002 and published January 20, 2005. (See Ex.
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,757
`
`1006). Vaughan identifies that a container cap is “a fairly small item and can give
`
`rise to a risk of choking if swallowed accidentally. This is a particular danger to
`
`children.” (Id., at ¶ 7.) Vaughan addresses this risk of choking by providing a cap
`
`with an “airway” formed by “one or more apertures in the cover that allow the flow
`
`of air through the cover if it is swallowed and becomes lodged in the throat.” (Id.,
`
`at ¶ 8.) Accordingly, Kudo and Vaughan each disclose caps, as illustrated in the
`
`figures below, which include internal channels or airways for the purpose of
`
`mitigating the risk of choking should the cap be accidentally swallowed.
`
`
`
`(Demonstrative Fig. 18, Ex. 1013; and Demonstrative Fig. 3, Ex. 1006.)
`
`
`
`
`
`C. The ’757 Patent’s Effective Filing Date And Prosecution History
`The ’757 Patent was filed on April 13, 2009 as a continuation of PCT
`
`Application No. PCT/IT2007/000426, which was filed on June 15, 2007 and which
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,757
`
`claims priority to Italian Patent Application No. BS2006A000190, which was filed
`
`October 27, 2006. (Ex. 1001.) On March 24, 2011, the Patent Owner petitioned
`
`the PTO to accelerate the prosecution of the ’757 Patent application because its
`
`attorney had allegedly “identified at least one product actually on the market that
`
`infringes at least one claim of the” application. (Ex. 1015 at 230.) The Examiner
`
`denied that petition as not timely filed with the application. (Id. at 228-229.)
`
`
`
`On August 2, 2011, the Examiner issued a non-final office action rejecting
`
`all the pending claims in the application. Specifically: (i) claims 2-18 were
`
`rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because, among other things, they
`
`failed to clearly identify the “structure of the cap [that] has a lower edge and an
`
`upper edge”, as recited by the claims; (ii) claim 1 was rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102(b) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,835,095 (“Marshall”); (iii) claims 13
`
`and 14 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Marshall in view of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,202,871 (“Kelly”); and (iv) claims 1, 2, 6, and 15-18 were
`
`rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`2006/0043056 (“Lee”) in view of Marshall. (Id. at 176-182.) The Examiner
`
`acknowledged that claims 2-5 and 7-12 would potentially be allowable if amended
`
`to incorporate the limitations of their respective independent base claims, and to
`
`correct their indefinite claim language. (Id.)
`
`On October 13, 2011, the Patent Owner responded to the non-final office
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,757
`
`action with argument that claims 2-18 were not indefinite by clarifying that “the
`
`language of this claim [2] specifies in part that an inner annular wall is axially
`
`extended between a lower edge, close to the guarantee seal, and an upper edge, and
`
`further that the lower edge is radially internal to the guarantee seal.” (Id. at 160.)
`
`Applicant further argued that Marshall failed to disclose inter alia that the safety
`
`portions are “constrained in the broken seal configuration” as recited by claim 1,
`
`and therefore did not anticipate the claim.” (Id. at 163.) The Patent Owner applied
`
`this same argument in opposition to the obviousness rejections of claims 1, 2, 6,
`
`and 13-18. (Id. at 165-166.)
`
`
`
`On February 29, 2012, the PTO issued a final office action that withdrew the
`
`rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 112 while maintaining the anticipation and
`
`obviousness rejections. (Id. at 138-144.) In response, on April 12, 2012, the
`
`Patent Owner amended claim 1 to incorporate the limitations from claims 2 and 3
`
`which recited “an inner annular wall axially extended between a lower edge, close
`
`to the guarantee seal, and an upper edge” and “a closing bottom arranged at the
`
`upper edge, for closing the inner annular wall; wherein the inner annular wall is
`
`integral with the handling portion and the lower edge of the inner annular wall is
`
`radially internal to the guarantee seal, wherein the inner annular wall is internally
`
`threaded for allowing the screwing and/or unscrewing from the coupling portion of
`
`the container.” (Id. at 44.) On July 25, 2013, the PTO allowed the claims as
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,757
`
`amended. (Id. at 8.)
`
`
`
`D. The Claims Of The ’757 Patent
`The ’757 Patent recites
`
`1a
`
`1b
`
`1c
`1d
`
`1e
`
`1f
`
`1g
`
`1h
`
`Claim 1
`1pre A cap suitable for being associated to a coupling portion of a container and
`suitable for being disconnected by rotation about an axis of rotation from
`the coupling portion, wherein the coupling portion comprises resistant
`elements suitable for engaging the cap; and wherein the cap comprises:
`a handling portion suitable for being rotated by a user for disconnecting
`the cap from the container;
`a guarantee seal, integral with the handling portion and comprising a
`plurality of guarantee portions, wherein the seal exhibits breaks in a
`broken seal configuration;
`wherein at least one of the guarantee portions comprises:
`an engagement portion having at least one engagement element suitable
`for engaging with the resistant elements of the coupling portion for
`preventing the rotation of the guarantee seal;
`a connecting portion, connected to the engagement portion, having at least
`one connecting element which makes the connecting portion integral to the
`handling portion;
`an inner annular wall axially extended between a lower edge, close to the
`guarantee seal, and an upper edge;
`a closing bottom arranged at the upper edge, for closing the inner annular
`wall;
`wherein the inner annular wall is integral with the handling portion and the
`lower edge of the inner annular wall is radially internal to the guarantee
`seal, wherein the inner annular wall is internally threaded for allowing the
`screwing and/or unscrewing from the coupling portion of the container;
`and wherein the guarantee seal comprises at least one bridge which
`connects adjacent guarantee portions to one another, the bridge being
`suitable for breaking by rotation of the handling portion relative to the
`guarantee seal;
`and wherein the guarantee seal further comprises a safety portion that
`makes the engagement portion integral with the handling portion, the
`
`1i
`
`1j
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,757
`
`safety portion being structurally suitable for keeping the engagement
`portion constrained in the broken seal configuration.
`
`Claim 2
`A cap according to claim 1, wherein the safety portion connects the
`engagement portion of the guarantee seal with the inner annular wall.
`
`Claim 3
`A cap according to claim 2, wherein the safety portion connects the
`engagement portion of the guarantee seal with the lower edge of the inner
`annular wall.
`
`Claim 4
`A cap according to claim 1, wherein the handling portion extends
`annularly about the inner annular wall, radially spaced therefrom, and
`axially between a bottom edge, close to the guarantee seal, and an upper
`edge.
`
`Claim 5
`A cap according to claim 4, wherein the lower edge radially extends
`externally to the guarantee seal.
`
`Claim 6
`A cap according to claim 4, comprising at least one tongue which connects
`the handling portion to the inner annular wall.
`
`Claim 7
`A cap according to claim 6, wherein the tongue is flat and laying on a
`longitudinal plane passing through the axis of rotation.
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2a
`
`3a
`
`4a
`
`5a
`
`6a
`
`7a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,757
`
`8a
`
`9a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 8
`A cap according to claim 6, wherein the tongues are in a number of four,
`angularly equally spaced.
`
`Claim 9
`A cap according to claim 6, wherein the safety portion of the guarantee
`seal comprises a reinforcing element that connects the engagement portion
`to the tongue.
`
`Claim 10
`10a A cap according to claim 1, wherein a loop is obtained between the
`engagement portion and the connecting portion of the guarantee seal for
`settling the engagement portion and the connecting portion in the broken
`seal configuration.
`
`
`
`Claim 11
`11a A cap according to claim 1, comprising safety passages passing through an
`outer enclosure of the cap.
`
`
`
`Claim 12
`12a A cap according to claim 11, wherein the safety passages are obtained
`through the handling portion.
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,757
`
`13b
`
`13c
`13d
`
`13e
`
`13f
`13g
`
`13h
`
`13i
`
`13j
`
`Claim 13
`13pre A closing device for a container comprising:
`13a
`a coupling portion provided with a tubular straw, the coupling portion
`being suitable for being associated to the container;
`a cap associated to the coupling portion, suitable for being disconnected by
`rotation about an axis of rotation from the coupling portion;
`wherein the cap comprises:
`a handling portion suitable for being rotated by a user for disconnecting
`the cap from the container;
`a guarantee seal, integral with the handling portion and comprising a
`plurality of guarantee portions, wherein the seal exhibits breaks in a
`broken seal configuration;
`wherein at least one of the guarantee portions comprises:
`an engagement portion having at least one engagement element suitable
`for engaging with resistant elements of the coupling portion for preventing
`the rotation of the guarantee seal;
`a connecting portion, connected to the engagement portion, having at least
`one connecting element which makes the connecting portion integral to the
`handling portion;
`an inner annular wall axially extended between a lower edge, close to the
`guarantee seal, and an upper edge;
`a closing bottom arranged at the upper edge, for closing the inner annular
`wall;
`13k wherein the inner annular wall is integral with the handling portion and the
`lower edge of the inner annular wall is radially internal to the guarantee
`seal, wherein the inner annular wall is internally threaded for allowing the
`screwing and/or unscrewing from the coupling portion of the container;
`and wherein the guarantee seal comprises at least one bridge which
`connects adjacent guarantee portions to one another, the bridge being
`suitable for breaking by rotation of the handling portion relative to the
`guarantee seal;
`and wherein the guarantee seal further comprises a safety portion that
`makes the engagement portion integral with the handling portion, the
`safety portion being structurally suitable for keeping the engagement
`portion constrained in the broken seal configuration.
`
`13l
`
`13m
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,757
`
`Claim 14
`14a A device according to claim 13, wherein the coupling portion comprises
`welding walls for welding the coupling portion to the container walls.
`
`
`
`15c
`
`15d
`
`15e
`15f
`
`15g
`
`Claim 15
`15pre A container assembly comprising:
`15a
`a container;
`15b
`a closing device coupled to the container, wherein the closing device
`comprising;
`a coupling portion provided with a tubular straw, the coupling portion
`being suitable for being associated to the container;
`a guarantee seal, integral with the handling portion and comprising a
`plurality of guarantee portions, wherein the seal exhibits breaks in a
`broken seal configuration;
`wherein at least one of the guarantee portions comprises:
`an engagement portion having at least one engagement element suitable
`for engaging with resistant elements of the coupling portion for preventing
`the rotation of the guarantee seal;
`a connecting portion, connected to the engagement portion, having at least
`one connecting element which makes the connecting portion integral to the
`handling portion;
`an inner annular wall axially extended between a lower edge, close to the
`guarantee seal, and an upper edge;
`a closing bottom arranged at the upper edge, for closing the inner annular
`wall;
`wherein the inner annular wall is integral with the handling portion and the
`lower edge of the inner annular wall is radially internal to the guarantee
`seal, wherein the inner annular wall is internally threaded for allowing the
`screwing and/or unscrewing from the coupling portion of the container;
`and wherein the guarantee seal comprises at least one bridge which
`connects adjacent guarantee portions t