`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GROWLERWERKS, INC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`DRINK TANKS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00262
`Patent 9,156,670 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
` Held: October 30, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, BEVERLY M. BUNTING, and
`JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00262
`Patent 9,156,670 B2
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
` SEAN O'BRIEN, ESQUIRE
`
`
` Marger, Johnson
` 888 Southwest Fifth Avenue.
` Suite 1050
` Portland, Oregon 97204
` (503) 222-3613
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`CRAIG R. SMITH, ESQUIRE
`Lando & Anastasi
`Riverfront Office Park
`One Main Street
`Cambridge, MA 02142
` (617) 395-7000
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday,
`
`October 30, 2017, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00262
`Patent 9,156,670 B2
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE MELVIN: Good afternoon, we're here for the hearing in
`IPR2017-262 between Petitioner, Growlerwerks, Incorporated and
`Patent Owner, Drink Tanks Corporation reviewing patent number
`9,156,670. I'm Judge Melvin, with me is Judge Kauffman, and Judge
`Bunting is appearing remotely from Detroit. Let's get the parties
`appearances, please, who do we have for Petitioner?
`MR. O'BRIEN: Sean O'Brien, on behalf of the Petitioner.
`JUDGE MELVIN: And, for the Patent Owner?
`MR. SMITH: Craig Smith, on behalf of Drink Tanks, the Patent
`Owner.
`JUDGE MELVIN: Would either of you like to introduce anybody
`else with you?
`MR. ROSS: I'm Kevin Ross, also for Petitioner.
`MR. SMITH: For the Patent Owner we also have John Herrick,
`who's one of the inventors and is the VP of engineering is with us today.
`JUDGE MELVIN: Thank you.
`MR. SMITH: Thank you.
`JUDGE MELVIN: Well, thank you and welcome. We appreciate
`you guys appearing here today and helping us with your arguments and
`we look forward to your presentations. So, while our order set forth the
`procedure generally I'll remind you both how this will work. But you
`each speak for 30 minutes, Petitioner starts and may reserve time for
`rebuttal. Please keep in mind that Judge Bunting is appearing remotely
`and can not see what you project on the screen, if you do project
`3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00262
`Patent 9,156,670 B2
`
`
`anything.
`She does have a copy of the materials so when you refer to an
`exhibit or a slide on the screen, please reference that exhibit number or
`slide number, and that helps us have a complete record, also it makes the
`transcript clearer. Also try to stay close to the microphone so that Judge
`Bunting can hear you because she will not be able to hear you otherwise.
`I'd like to remind you both that under no circumstance should you
`interrupt when your friend across the aisle is speaking. If you have an
`objection to something that's going on you can reserve that for your own
`argument time.
`At the end, if Patent Owner has an additional objection to the
`rebuttal, we'll address that at that time. Last week Petitioner filed some
`objections to certain of Patent Owner's demonstratives. We reviewed
`those objections and the demonstratives. At this time we consider slides
`32 and 35 to contain impermissible new arguments, so Patent Owner
`may wish to identify during the hearing where the arguments or
`characterizations on those slides were previously raised. We will not
`consider arguments raised for the first time at this hearing but we're not
`going to stop you from using those demonstratives. Do either of you
`have any questions.
`MR. O'BRIEN: I don't.
`JUDGE MELVIN: Well, Petitioner has the burden of proof and
`will begin. Would you like to reserve time for rebuttal?
`MR. O'BRIEN: I would. If it's not too much trouble I think we'd
`like to reserve seven minutes.
`JUDGE MELVIN: Okay. We are ready when you are.
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00262
`Patent 9,156,670 B2
`
`
`
`MR. O'BRIEN: May it please the Board. Over the next hour I
`expect that the Board will hear a lot about the nuances of patent law and
`those things are important, of course, but as we get into those finer
`points of law it's important not to lose track of what we're dealing with.
`It's a beverage container for storing, transporting, and dispensing a
`beverage such as beer. Independent Claim 1, which is on slide 2 of the
`handout, recited three primary features; a vacuum-sealed vessel, a
`threaded lid having a gas inlet valve, and a seal between the lip and the
`vessel.
`Claim 1 also states that the vessel has a rim which has a
`non-planar surface, and that the seal is configured to seal against that
`non-planar surface and that's it. An obvious combination of parts that
`are well-known in mechanical engineering. During prosecution of the
`challenged patent, the patent examiner substantially agreed that the hole
`was not greater than the sum of its parts. The examiner determined that
`a single United States patent anticipated the applications only
`independent claim.
`But the examiner stated if the independent claim were amended to
`specify that the lid for the claimed system had a threaded portion, then
`the claim would be neither anticipated nor obvious, and that's why we're
`here today. Because the patent examiner, without having the benefit of
`the best art, determined that adding threads to the lid of a beverage
`container would make the independent claim patentable. And the Patent
`Owner doesn't dispute that the claimed system is a collection of familiar
`elements.
`Instead the Patent Owner argues that there was no apparent reason
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00262
`Patent 9,156,670 B2
`
`
`to combine the known elements even though the references themselves
`teach that the features are known and are within the technical grasp of a
`person of ordinary skill. Critical to its argument is that Patent Owner's
`view, that a phrase found in both independent claims of the challenged
`patent, should be read as a single undivided expression even though that
`contention is not supported by the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`the claims.
`JUDGE MELVIN: Let me ask you, is it possible that one could
`construe a given claim limitation as an undivided portion, an undivided
`structure?
`MR. O'BRIEN: In general, yes, but I think in this case the
`specification doesn't really support that kind of interpretation. I think in
`particular here the Patent Owner is seeking to import limitations from
`the specification to narrow non-planar to mean in the shape of a bend or
`arcuate and cross section, but those words don't appear in the claim
`themselves. Also, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, as I said,
`the specification doesn't support the definition -- excuse me, the single
`phrase construction set forth by the Patent Owner. For example, the
`specific links double-walled construction with a bend in the rim. It
`doesn't link vacuum sealing with a more general non-planar rim and
`those are the terms that are in the independent claims.
`JUDGE BUNTING: Counselor, excuse me, do you have a
`citation from the specification for what you just said?
`MR. O'BRIEN: I don't have it to the specification but I do have it
`for our Patent Owner's response -- excuse me, the Petitioner's response
`to the Patent Owners, which is the document paper 10 of page 14 and
`6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00262
`Patent 9,156,670 B2
`
`
`there we discussed that argument.
`JUDGE BUNTING: Thank you.
`MR. O'BRIEN: You're welcome.
`JUDGE MELVIN: Why does that matter though? Would you
`agree that if the claim were worded to address the more particular term
`that it would be limited to a single structure?
`MR. O'BRIEN: Not necessarily. I think -- well, I mean obviously
`the reason the Patent Owner is putting forth that argument is because
`their position is that no single reference discloses that entire phrase that I
`read, a vacuum-sealed metal vessel having a rim which has a non-planar
`surface, and in their view then a single reference would have to disclose
`that. Obviously in our view, and I don't think that that doesn't seem to
`be the case under Section 103 law, we need to read each reference for
`what each fairly teaches and in this case it's two reference, a Rosbach
`and Olson, that teach those features.
`JUDGE KAUFFMAN: If I could I'd like to follow up on that,
`please. So, I think one interpretation of the Patent Owner's main
`construction argument is that this element must be shown in one
`reference. Essentially that this element must be anticipated, right, and I
`think you just answered that, well, it's an obviousness ground and so it
`doesn't -- that doesn't work. But another interpretation that he's trying to
`argue something structural, that somehow a vessel with a rim is different
`from a container that has a vessel and a rim, and I'm struggling to figure
`out what that structural difference would be. Would that mean that the
`vacuum-sealed metal portion has to go all the way to the rim? How to
`you understand that argument structurally?
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00262
`Patent 9,156,670 B2
`
`
`
`MR. O'BRIEN: Well, I think that in terms of where to place the
`rim I think the important thing here is that the claim doesn't specify
`where the rim needs to be in relation to the double-walled construction
`which is what they're talking about. The -- for example, the
`double-walled construction is not even mentioned in either of the
`independent claims, that's in two of the dependent claims. Claim 18,
`which is the second independent claim, only has one dependent claim
`and that one has added the double-walled feature to it. So it's something
`that they felt was important enough to make a distinction within both of
`their claims set. So I think that's the important thing here is that the
`claims themselves don't require that definition. They don't require that
`the rim being the double-walled section of the container body.
`JUDGE MELVIN: What distinction are you drawing between
`double-walled and vacuum-sealed because I understand that one term is
`in the independent claim and there's a dependent claim that adds
`double-walled, but how could you have one and not the other?
`MR. O'BRIEN: Well, I don't know but apparently it was
`important to the Patent Owner to distinguish between the two of those
`because as I mentioned the two independent claims mentioned
`vacuum-sealed but they don't mention double-walled. The patent
`specification itself treats those as two separate things. It mentions, for
`example, that flipping it around the other way the double-walled doesn't
`necessarily mean vacuum-sealed. There could be foam, for example, in
`between the two double walls and could be insulated in that way, so the
`specification treats those as two separate items.
`I'd like to talk next a little bit about the apparent reasons to
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00262
`Patent 9,156,670 B2
`
`
`combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the challenged
`patent. And if you'd like you can refer to slide 9 of our handouts, which
`has the two independent claims on the left in figure 13 from Olson on
`the right. As explained in the petition Olson teaches all but two of the
`independent claims -- excuse me, two elements of the independent
`claims, vacuum-sealed and a gas inlet valve, and the Patent Owner does
`not contend otherwise.
`If you'd like to refer now to slide 10 of the handouts, which has
`the Rosbach reference, a figure from that up there. The Patent Owner
`also does not dispute that Rosbach teaches a container body comprising
`a vacuum-sealed metal vessel in the context of a metal bottle for use
`with beer where the thermal properties of keeping chilled liquids cold
`preserves carbonation, and being of a proper size for use as a growler.
`Fails to keep beer, particularly craft beer, cold in transit before
`consumption can irretrievably damage the flavor of the beer through
`thermal shock. And that double-walled, vacuum-sealed construction can
`keep the beverage cooler for a longer time, so a vacuum-sealed metal
`beer growler is within the grasp of a person of ordinary skill. If you'd
`like to look at slide 11 now of the handout.
`JUDGE MELVIN: Before we go on to Snead. In your view what
`is the intended purpose of Olson?
`MR. O'BRIEN: The intended purpose of Olson is to keep beer
`cold particularly in transit before consumption, the passage I just quoted.
`JUDGE MELVIN: Olson or Rosbach?
`MR. O'BRIEN: I'm sorry, that was Rosbach. Olson, the purpose
`of Olson is to provide a bottle that -- excuse me, provide a seal for a
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00262
`Patent 9,156,670 B2
`
`
`metal bottle.
`JUDGE MELVIN: So, Patent Owner has argued, of course, that
`Olson has a number of purposes that would be damaged by the
`combination, so can you just address that more directly?
`MR. O'BRIEN: Sure, I think that goes back, again, to the Patent
`Owner has things a little bit backwards. We're starting -- in the
`Petitioner's argument, we're starting with the teachings of Olson and
`we're adding the teachings of Rosbach to that. And so we have the bottle
`with the curl, the non-planar rim, and we're adding the double-walled
`feature that Rosbach teaches to that. And I think that they, the Patent
`Owner, is kind of splitting that out. It's had a little bit in assuming that
`the combination is the other way around.
`I go now back to the point I made before, is that the claims
`themselves don't specify that the rim needs to be in the double-walled
`portion because it calls out two different sections. One, being the vessel
`and one being the container body itself. And as I mentioned neither of
`those independent claims recites the double-walled construction which is
`instead added by independent claims. But I think also something to keep
`in mind here, is the standard is whether we, as the Petitioner, had pointed
`to a rational basis for incorporating what Rosbach teaches into what
`Olson teaches, and I think we've done that because Olson teaches the
`elements of the independent claims I just went over with slide 9 there.
`It teaches everything except vacuum-sealed and gas inlet valve,
`and Rosbach teaches the container body comprising a vacuum-sealed
`metal vessel. As I just mentioned there too Rosbach teaches that failing
`to keep beer cold in transit before consumption can truly damage the
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00262
`Patent 9,156,670 B2
`
`
`flavor of the beer. So, those teachings provide a rational basis for taking
`the double-walled concept for Rosbach and translating it into Olson.
`JUDGE MELVIN: So I think the dispute there seems to be about
`the particular manner of combining the teachings of Rosbach and the
`structure of Olson. I believe you said earlier that the claims don't require
`the connection between the two walls happening at a particular point but
`how are Rosbach's teachings relevant there? What does Rosbach teach
`about the connection?
`MR. O'BRIEN: Well, Rosbach teaches that they just -- they
`connect at a single point and that could be wherever a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would choose to put that. If you're asking me then it could
`be at the base of the neck or something, it could be somewhere else. We
`didn't discuss that particularly in our briefs but I don't think it's necessary
`because the claims don't specify where that connection must be.
`JUDGE MELVIN: Do you think that there's a point at which the
`vacuum-insulated portion of the container becomes so minimal it has to
`be trivial and therefore not within the claims anymore?
`MR. O'BRIEN: Well, let me look at the actually claim language, I
`hadn't considered that, that particular point before. But the claim
`language says that it has to be vacuum-sealed and doesn't really specify
`how much of that it is and we've all been assuming that means
`vacuum-insulated, but I think that's probably a safe assumption. And
`then the double-walled feature is added later on and, again, the way that
`the claim language is set up it says that the container body comprises the
`vacuum-sealed metal vessel.
`So the container body presumably, as we all know through patent
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00262
`Patent 9,156,670 B2
`
`
`language could, contain other things as well. The vacuum-sealed metal
`vessel need not be the entirely of the container body, and this claim
`doesn't say that that has to be the case. They're two separate sections of
`the components of the -- it's called out in Claim 1 and Claim 18. I think
`one thing that's also important on that same vein there is that the Patent
`Owner hasn't shown anything that prevents the teachings of those two
`from being combined or renders them unusable.
`They've presented some ideas, but as we just talked about those
`there's more than one way that these things can be combined, a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would combine them. I'd like to speak a little bit
`now about the level of skill in the art element from the grand factors.
`The Patent Owner asserts that it's not adequate to glean the level of
`ordinary skill from the prior art itself. Instead the Patent Owner
`proposes its own definition to the testimony of its expert.
`But the level of ordinary skill proposed by the Patent Owner does
`not differ significantly from the level that was gleamed from the prior art
`itself. And to the contrary, the level proposed by the Patent Owner test
`to corroborate what was determined by examining the prior art directly.
`More importantly, even if the two levels are different the Patent Owner's
`proposed level of skill in the art does not impact the obviousness
`analysis set forth in the petition. If they said there had to be
`some -- excuse, if there would be some sort of an impact the Patent
`Owner did not point it out.
`Also, contrary to the Patent Owner's assertion it is clearly
`appropriate under the law to rely on the prior art itself to indicate the
`level of skill in the art. The cases that were cited by the Patent Owner do
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00262
`Patent 9,156,670 B2
`
`
`not direct a different result.
`JUDGE MELVIN: On that issue are all of your justifications and
`reasons for the various combinations derived from teachings in the art
`itself?
`MR. O'BRIEN: That's correct. What we did was we presented
`the facts in terms of the different quotations from each of the references
`themselves to show the familiar factors of -- Patent Owner quoted the
`Environmental v. Science case, which lists the factors that we're all
`familiar with for determining a level of skill in the art. And some of
`what we showed in the petition was, for example, the type of problems
`that are encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems,
`and the sophistication of the technology by quoting different passages
`from the references themselves.
`JUDGE KAUFFMAN: Will you be addressing secondary
`considerations?
`MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, I can do that right now.
`JUDGE KAUFFMAN: Great.
`MR. O'BRIEN: So with regard to secondary considerations as an
`initial matter as the Board knows secondary considerations are not
`adequate to establish non-obviousness where the invention represents no
`more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
`established functions, and that's what the challenged patent is, an
`obvious combination of known parts. But even if the secondary
`considerations are evaluated the Patent Owner hasn't shown a nexus
`between the purported evidence and the merits of the claimed invention.
`JUDGE MELVIN: What about the presumption of nexus? Aren't
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00262
`Patent 9,156,670 B2
`
`
`they entitled to a presumption of nexus if they show the language of the
`claims reads on their product?
`MR. O'BRIEN: They haven't shown that because the biggest
`feature -- excuse me, one of the key features is the threaded portion of
`the lid and their document, their paper, doesn't point out where that
`threaded portion is.
`JUDGE MELVIN: Well, it doesn't have a call out to the threaded
`portion but it does depict, for example, the pressure inlet fitting, right,
`which seems to have a threaded portion on it?
`MR. O'BRIEN: Well, I haven't heard the Patent Owner make that
`specific argument before, about the gas inlet valve would be
`the -- excuse me, contain the threaded portion. But assuming that's the
`position that they take it's their burden to show the Board that that is
`what they mean, but instead they just provide a drawing. It has some
`labels on it but that was not one of them. They did not point exactly to
`where the threaded portion is, and more importantly the drawings that
`they provided have bails on them so we can assume that the lid itself is
`not threaded to the bottle, otherwise it wouldn't need the bails --
`JUDGE MELVIN: But would that stop the claim from reading on
`this embodiment?
`MR. O'BRIEN: I'm sorry?
`JUDGE MELVIN: Would using bails to attach the lid to the
`bottle be enough to take this embodiment outside of Claim 1, for
`example?
`MR. O'BRIEN: Not by itself, but presumably then they would not
`need to thread the cap on there. If it was held by bails instead they
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00262
`Patent 9,156,670 B2
`
`
`would not need to thread the cap on there.
`JUDGE MELVIN: But are you saying that the broadest
`reasonable construction of the term threaded portion has to be a threaded
`portion to attach the lid to the container?
`MR. O'BRIEN: Well, I'm saying that they didn't take a position
`on that one way or another even though it's their burden to show that
`their product that they're selling shows -- excuse me, matches with the
`claim language and that's a key feature. That's the one -- the patent is
`presumed valid as we stand here right now, and that is the feature that
`they added for an dependent claim in order to make the claim patentable.
`So the threaded portion would seem to be what makes the patent then
`diverge from what was in the prior art but they didn't point to where that
`is in the product.
`JUDGE MELVIN: When the examiner discussed the threaded
`portion in the file history is it clear that the examiner referred to a
`threaded portion or threaded attachment between the lid and the
`container body?
`MR. O'BRIEN: It's not clear. What happened is that that claim
`language came from one of the dependent claims and the examiner said
`the claim was allowable and didn't provide any specific reason that -- the
`record is quiet about why that it.
`JUDGE MELVIN: In your petition when you discussed the
`priority date of the challenged claim didn't you essentially take the
`position that the threaded inlet valve could be the threaded portion of
`Claim 1?
`MR. O'BRIEN: That's right, but ever since then everybody, the
`15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00262
`Patent 9,156,670 B2
`
`
`Board included, it seems to be kind of operating under the assumption
`that it's the threaded to -- let me see what it is in the Board's
`language -- to retain the lid is what the treads are for, what the Board
`cited in its institution order on pages 43 and 44. And the Patent Owner
`hasn't come down either way on that, but regardless of this particular
`issue there are the other two factors under secondary considerations to
`consider, which is that the Patent Owner sells at least six different
`products, but they provide only one lump sum amount for their sales for
`the past four years.
`So, they don't specify which part of the sales are for the patented
`product or which are for other products. So, regardless of this issue that
`we're discussing right now in addition, the Patent Owner has at least four
`other United States patents, one utility patent, and three design patents
`which also purport to cover the Patent Owner's product, and they have
`not in their briefs spoken to how the product's success may be attributed
`to those other patents.
`JUDGE KAUFFMAN: I don't want to interrupt, but I'd like to
`back up a little bit because I -- maybe I misunderstood you, but I thought
`you said that if the patent is a combination of known elements that you
`don't consider secondary considerations and I'm unaware of a Federal
`Circuit case that says that. Do you have some authority that says that?
`MR. O'BRIEN: What I have is, again, I'm sorry, my cites are to
`the record, so I have in our paper 10 at page 23, I believe we cited some
`authority there. If you'd like we can look that up and I can provide --
`JUDGE KAUFFMAN: I will look that up, that's good enough,
`thank you. So, I feel like your argument is this evidence of secondary
`16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00262
`Patent 9,156,670 B2
`
`
`considerations is not in commensurate in scope because it's missing the
`element of the thread, and I agree with Judge Melvin that it looks to me
`like it says a threaded portion and it doesn't say that the threads have to
`attach the lid to the container, so that's the first problem. But my second
`problem is, you're saying because it doesn't have this one element that
`it's not reasonably commensurate in scope because I think that's the
`standard with Claim 1. So, do you have a case that says that, if it's
`missing this one element than it's not reasonably commensurate in
`scope?
`MR. O'BRIEN: I don't believe so but in that case I would fall
`back also on the other points that we've made mainly with regard to their
`sales. Whether those are actually substantial in the market or whether
`they're actually attributable to the patent product. And I see that I'm over
`my time.
`JUDGE KAUFFMAN: That's the end of those series of questions
`I have, and you still have seven minutes for rebuttal.
`MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you.
`MR. SMITH: Before I begin would it be helpful to pass up copies
`of the slides that I would like to use or do you already have copies?
`JUDGE MELVIN: We have copies.
`MR. SMITH: Thank you.
`JUDGE KAUFFMAN: Judge Bunting has a copy with her
`electronically as well.
`MR. SMITH: Good morning, Your Honors, I'm Craig Smith. I
`am on behalf of the Patent Owner, Drink Tanks. I'd be happy to address
`some of the arguments that we just heard because I think they might be
`17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00262
`Patent 9,156,670 B2
`
`
`most useful in terms of having the Patent Owner's response to some of
`the commentary that we just heard about Drink Tank's patent. One of
`the problems that we've identified with the petition in this case is that it's
`identified a number of different pieces of prior art. But in one critical
`area it hasn't disclosed an element of the claim and in other areas it hasn't
`provided any suggestion or teaching to us as to how you would combine
`those references together. One place that the Patent Owner started with
`was with regard to claim construction and in particular looking at the
`language in the claim that we argue has to be interpreted more as a
`single unit than as separate pieces of units. So the claim element is the
`vacuum-sealed metal vessel having a rim which has a non-planar
`surface, and this shows up on slide 15 of our presentation.
`JUDGE MELVIN: So, even if that were construed as a single
`structure why would that prohibit an obviousness rejection or
`obviousness ground from drawing from teachings from multiple
`references?
`MR. SMITH: The problem we've identified, Your Honor, is that
`this is a structure that requires it to have the metal vessel, the insulated
`metal vessel with the rim, and so the claim language is talking about one
`particular structure. What the Petitioner's done in its petition is it said
`we found a piece of prior art, and that piece of prior art shows a bottle in
`a different area of containers with a curl on it and we see another
`reference that has a double-walled structure, and therefore, we think that
`satisfies the element. But it doesn't satisfy the structure that's required in
`the claim. The structure required in the claim is having the
`vacuum-sealed metal vessel having, meaning it's connecting these two
`18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00262
`Patent 9,156,670 B2
`
`
`pieces, having a rim with a non-planar surface and nothing that they've
`identified has that structure to it. So, we think it's inappropriate to take
`the element, which has one structure, carve it in half and say, well, we've
`shown you one portion of that structure and another portion of the
`structure but the two together don't actually match. They don't actually
`work together in order to show that as a proper obviousness rejection.
`JUDGE MELVIN: Isn't that a separate argument, that the two
`teachings in the prior art can not work together? And I think we should
`talk about that separately, and I understand you to be making that
`argument, but it seems to me that your obviousness -- your argument, as
`Judge Kauffman expressed it earlier, is that this claim limitation as a
`structure may only be anticipated, it may not be rendered obvious?
`MR. SMITH: I wouldn't say that, Your Honor. I'd say that there's
`certainly obviousness arguments that can be made with regard to it but
`they haven't shown a structure that commensurate with what is required
`here.
`
`JUDGE MELVIN: Well, what's wrong with the structure that
`they've shown? And as I understand it it's that they took the bottle in
`Olson, and they modified that by adding a feature, and the feature is the
`double-walled construction of Rosbach. So why don't you end up then
`with a structure that the claim language does read on?
`MR. SMITH: So, this gets us into I would consider to be why
`their motivation to combine fails and that's because what they've tried to
`do is take two, in our view, different bottling technologies and try to
`combine them together where they don't actually fit. So, an example in
`an Olson, Olson's very concerned with having a very thin wall and what
`19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00262
`Patent 9,156,670 B2
`
`
`they do is they have a curl on the rim because they're trying to increase
`the strength of it because they have this pressure that they say is about
`300 pounds per square inch of pressure coming down on it.
`So, they need to be able to increase the structural rigidity but they
`want to keep it as thin as possible. And that would be appropriate for
`situations where you have this mass produced product where you're
`reheating these can-like metal bottles. Rosbach is very different, what
`we're talking about is growlers that are developed with a double wall so
`that you can increase the thermal properties of it. And so what you're
`trying to do in Rosbach is very different from what you're doing in
`Olson, and the two of them don't actually mesh well together. In fact,
`the t
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
