Upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we exercise our discretion not to institute, and also determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of claims 1–30 of the ’162 patent.
With that guidance in mind, we turn to the question of whether the Petition in this proceeding warrants inter partes review on the ground that claims 1–30 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Radwanski, Rowan, and Murch, given that similar issues were the subject of our final decision in the 1248 IPR.
There are sufficient reasons under the specific facts of this case to exercise our discretion to deny institution on Petitioner’s asserted ground that claims 1–30 of the ’162 patent would have been obvious over the combination of Radwanski, Rowan, and Murch.
We determine, under the circumstances, that instituting an inter partes review on Petitioner’s asserted ground that claims 1–30 of the ’162 patent would have been obvious over the combination of Radwanski, Rowan, and Murch would not be an efficient use of administrative resources.
Petitioner, however, does not provide sufficient explanation as to why a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to Rowan, which is directed to a fire and heat-resistant fabric made by connecting together two sheets of laminate, each of which comprises a mixture of an intumescent filler and an adhesive (Ex. 1005, Abs.