UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`KAZ USA, INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRITA LP,
`
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Case No. IPR2016-01893
`Patent No. 8,167,141
`_______________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,167,141
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`Preliminary Statement ........................................................................... 1
`
`B. Overview ............................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Parties in Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ........................... 4
`
`Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ...................................... 4
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................... 5
`
`Service Information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................ 5
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ....................................... 5
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH WORD COUNT UNDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ............................................................................................. 6
`
`V.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................ 6
`
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .............................. 6
`
`B.
`
`Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested ............. 6
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE PATENT ..................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Background of the Art ........................................................................... 7
`
`The Alleged Invention of the ’141 Patent ............................................. 9
`
`Summary of the Prosecutions of the ’141 Patent and Related
`Family Members ..................................................................................11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The ’141 Patent Family .............................................................11
`
`The Prosecution History of the ’141 Patent Family .................13
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Not Entitled to a Priority Date
`Earlier than the Filing Date of the ’284 Application That Issued
`As the ’141 Patent ...............................................................................17
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .......................................................20
`
`Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ..........................20
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“Filter Rate and Performance (FRAP) Factor” .........................20
`
`“Block” ......................................................................................22
`
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ......................................23
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-12, 16-19, and 22-24 Are Anticipated by
`Knipmeyer (KAZ-1009) ......................................................................23
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claim 2 (“the Filter
`Achieves a FRAP Factor of Less than about 200”) ..................24
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`“Gravity-fed Water Filter” ..............................................24
`
`“Filter Media including at Least Activated Carbon
`and a Lead Scavenger” ...................................................24
`
`“Volume” ........................................................................25
`
`“Average Filtration Unit Time” ......................................26
`
`“Effluent Lead Concentration at End of Lifetime …” ...27
`
`“Filter Usage Lifetime …” .............................................27
`
`“The Filter Achieves a Filter Rate and Performance
`(FRAP) Factor of about 350 or Less” .............................28
`
`Dependent Claims 3 (“Volume (V) of the Filter Media Is
`Less than about 300 cm3”) and 4 (“Volume (V) of the Filter
`Media Is Less than about 150 cm3”) .........................................29
`
`Dependent Claims 5 (“the Average Filtration Unit Time (f)
`Is Less Than about 12 Minutes per Liter”) and 6
`(“the Average Filtration Unit Time (f) Is Less Than about 6
`Minutes per Liter”)....................................................................29
`
`Dependent Claim 7 (“the Filter Media Is Present in the
`Form of a Block”) .....................................................................30
`
`Dependent Claim 8 (“a Binder Material Interspersed with
`Particles of the Activated Carbon”) ..........................................30
`
`Dependent Claim 9 (“the Binder Material Has a Melt
`Index That Is Less Than 1.8 g/10 min…”) ...............................30
`
`Dependent Claim 10 (“the Binder Material Has a Melt
`Index That Is about 1.0 g/10 min…”) .......................................31
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Dependent Claims 11 (“the Filter Fits within a Container
`Having a Volume of Less Than about 20 in3”) and 12
`(“Wherein the Filter Fits within a Container Having a
`Volume of Less Than about 10 in3”) ........................................31
`
`Dependent Claim 16 (“the Block Has an Open Top for
`Receiving Unfiltered Water into a Cavity thereof”) .................31
`
`10. Dependent Claims 17 (“a Median Sidewall Thickness …
`Less Than about 0.6 Inch”) and 18 (“a Median Sidewall
`Thickness … Less Than about 0.4 Inch”).................................32
`
`11. Dependent Claim 19 (“a Structure of the Block Is
`Characterized by Having Been Compressed No More
`Than 10% by Volume During Fabrication of the Filter”) ........32
`
`12. Dependent Claim 22 (“the Lead Scavenger Is a Zirconia
`Oxide or Hydroxide”) ...............................................................33
`
`13.
`
`Independent Claim 23 ...............................................................33
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`“Gravity-flow System for Filtering Water” ....................34
`
`“A Container Having a Source Water Reservoir …
`and a Filtered Water Reservoir” .....................................34
`
`“A Cartridge in Communication with Both the Source
`Water Reservoir and the Filtered Water Reservoir” ......35
`
`d.
`
`“A Filter As Recited in Claim 1” ...................................35
`
`14. Dependent Claim 24 (“Cartridge Has an Aperture through a
`Sidewall …”) .............................................................................35
`
`B. Ground 2: Claims 1-8, 11-19, and 22-23 Are Anticipated by Cutler
`’483 ......................................................................................................36
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Independent Claims 1 (“a Gravity-fed Water Filter” and
`“Gravity-flow System for Filtering Water”) and 23
`(“Gravity-flow System for Filtering Water”) ...........................37
`
`Independent Claims 1, 23 (“Filter Media including at Least
`Activated Carbon and Lead Scavenger”) ..................................37
`
`Independent Claims 1, 23 (“(FRAP) Factor of about 350 or
`Less”) and Dependent Claim 2 (“Less Than about 200”) ........38
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Dependent Claims 3 (“the Volume of the Filter Media (V)
`Is Less Than about 300 cm3”) and 4 (“…Less Than
`about 150 cm3”) ........................................................................38
`
`Dependent Claims 5 (“the Average Filtration Unit Time (f)
`Is Less Than about 12 Minutes per Liter”) and 6 (“Less
`Than about 6 Minutes per Liter”) .............................................39
`
`Dependent Claim 19 (“Block Is Characterized by Having
`Been Compressed No More Than 10% by Volume During
`Fabrication of the Filter”) .........................................................39
`
`7.
`
`Claim Chart ...............................................................................40
`
`C. Ground 3: Claims 1-8, 11-19, and 22-23 Are Obvious over
`Cutler ’483 ...........................................................................................44
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 23 (“(FRAP) Factor of about 350 or
`Less”), Dependent Claim 2 (“Less Than about 200”) ..............44
`
`Dependent Claim 6 (“the Average Filtration Unit Time (f)
`Is Less Than about 6 Minutes per Liter”) .................................45
`
`Dependent Claim 19 (“a Structure of the Block Is
`Characterized by Having Been Compressed No More
`Than 10% by Volume During Fabrication of the Filter”) ........46
`
`D. Ground 4: Claims 9, 10, 20, 21, 23, and 24 Are Obvious over
`Cutler ’483 in View of One or More of Cutler ’875, Rinker, and
`Admitted Prior Art...............................................................................47
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`“Admitted Prior Art” .................................................................47
`
`Dependent Claim 9 (“the Binder Material Has a Melt
`Index That Is Less Than 1.8 G/10 min …”) .............................48
`
`Dependent Claim 10 (“the Binder Material Has a Melt
`Index That Is about 1.0 g/10 min …”) ......................................49
`
`Dependent Claim 20 (“the Filter Media Comprises
`Primarily Particles That Are Not Bound Together”) ................50
`
`Dependent Claim 21 (“the Filter Media Is Present in the
`Form of Granular Carbon”) ......................................................51
`
`6.
`
`Independent Claim 23 ...............................................................52
`
`a.
`
`“Gravity-flow System for Filtering Water” ....................52
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`“A Container having a Source Water Reservoir …
`and a Filtered Water Reservoir” .....................................52
`
`“A Cartridge in Communication with Both the
`Source Water Reservoir and the Filtered Water
`Reservoir” .......................................................................53
`
`d.
`
`“A Filter As Recited in Claim 1” ...................................54
`
`7.
`
`Claim Chart ...............................................................................55
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5: Claims 1-12, 16-19, and 22-23 Are Anticipated
`by Rinker .............................................................................................57
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Independent Claims 1 (“a Gravity-fed Water Filter”), 23
`(“Gravity-flow System for Filtering Water”), and
`Dependent Claim 7 (“the Filter Media Is Present in the
`Form of a Block”) .....................................................................57
`
`Independent Claims 1, 23 (“Filter Media including at
`Least Activated Carbon and Lead Scavenger”) ........................58
`
`Independent Claims 1, 23 (“(FRAP) Factor of
`about 350 or Less”) and Dependent Claim 2 (“Less
`Than about 200”) ......................................................................58
`
`Dependent Claims 3 (“the Volume of the Filter Media (V)
`Is Less Than about 300 cm3”) and 4 (“…Less Than
`about 150 cm3”) ........................................................................60
`
`5.
`
`Claim Chart ...............................................................................60
`
`F.
`
`Ground 6: Claims 1-19 and 22-23 Are Obvious over Rinker
`in View of Woodruff ...........................................................................63
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 23 (“(FRAP) Factor of
`about 350 or Less”), Dependent Claim 2 (“Less Than
`about 200”) ................................................................................64
`
`Rinker in View of Woodruff .....................................................65
`
`Reasons to Combine Rinker and Woodruff ..............................65
`
`Claim Chart ...............................................................................66
`
`A. Ground 7: Claims 20 and 21 Are Obvious over Rinker in
`View of Cutler ’875 .............................................................................68
`
`1.
`
`Reasons to Combine Rinker and Cutler ’875 ...........................68
`
`v
`
`

`
`
`
`2.
`2.
`
`Claim Chart ...............................................................................69
`Claim Chart ............................................................................. ..69
`
`B. Ground 8: Claim 24 Is Obvious over Rinker in View of Hughes .......70
`B.
`Ground 8: Claim 24 Is Obvious over Rinker in View of Hughes ..... ..7O
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................71
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ ..71
`
`
`
`vi
`Vi
`
`

`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336, (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...........................................................................18
`
`Cuozzo Speed Technologies. LLC v. Lee,
`No. 15446, 579 U.S. ____, slip. op. (U.S. Jun. 20, 2016) ....................................23
`
`In re Best,
`562 F.2d 1252, (CCPA 1977) ........................................................................ 24, 59
`
`In re Woodruff,
`919 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ..................................................................... 46, 47
`
`Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner,
`778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ..............................................................................46
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
`
`MPEP § 2112.III ......................................................................................................24
`
`MPEP § 2144.05 ............................................................................................... 45, 46
`
`MPEP 201.11(I)(B) ..................................................................................................18
`
`Code of Federal Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ....................................................................................... 20, 23
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`KAZ-1001
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,167,141 (“the ’141 Patent”)
`
`KAZ-1002
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,200,483 (“Cutler ’483”)
`
`KAZ-1003
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,405,875 (“Cutler ’875”)
`
`KAZ-1004
`
`U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0000763 (“Rinker”)
`
`KAZ-1005
`
`EP 345381 (“Woodruff”)
`
`KAZ-1006
`
`WO 2008036861 (“Saaski ’861”)
`
`KAZ-1007
`
`U.S. Serial No. 60/846,161 (“Saaski ’161”)
`
`KAZ-1008
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,524,477 (“Hughes”)
`
`KAZ-1009
`
`U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2008/0110820 (“Knipmeyer”)
`
`KAZ-1010
`
`U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2008/0223797 (“Reid-Saaski ’765”)
`
`KAZ-1011
`
`U.S. Serial No. 60/846,162 (“Reid-Saaski ’162”)
`
`KAZ-1012
`
`Declaration of Michael D. Mitchell
`
`KAZ-1013
`
`Assignment Records of U.S. Patent No. 8,167,141
`
`KAZ-1014
`
`File History of U.S. Pat. No. 8,167,141
`
`KAZ-1015
`
`Assignment Records of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2008/0110820
`
`KAZ-1016
`
`File History of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2008/0110820
`
`KAZ-1017
`
`Assignment Records of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2008/0223797
`
`KAZ-1018
`
`File History of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2008/0223797
`
`KAZ-1019
`
`Assignment Records of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0000763
`
`KAZ-1020
`
`File History of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0000763
`
`viii
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Preliminary Statement
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,167,141 B2 (“the ’141 Patent”) relates to “gravity-fed”
`
`water filters. None of the claims, however, are patentable because all of the
`
`claims’ structural and compositional limitations are expressly and repeatedly
`
`taught in the prior art.
`
`For example, the structure of the gravity-fed water filter of every claim
`
`includes a “filter media” with “at least activated carbon and a lead scavenger.”
`
`Such a structure has been well known in the art for many decades. And so, to try
`
`to claim patentable subject matter, the applicant included additional limitations that
`
`at least appeared novel: performance limitations based on a formula—coined the
`
`“FRAP” factor by the applicant—that measures the performance of water filters.
`
`But these performance limitations add nothing to the claims because the
`
`FRAP factor is merely a measurement of an inherent performance property of
`
`such water filters and of water filters found in the prior art. Because many prior art
`
`references expressly disclose the claims’ structural limitations and at least
`
`inherently disclose this so-called FRAP factor, all of the claims of the ’141 Patent
`
`are unpatentable.
`
`B. Overview
`
`The ’141 Patent (KAZ-1001) is generally directed to gravity-fed water filters
`
`for reducing contaminants such as lead in a source water. (Id. 5:19-20, 26:55-57,
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`27:61-64). The gravity-fed water filters of the ’141 Patent each include at least
`
`activated carbon and a lead scavenger. (Id. at Abst., claims 1, 23). The ’141 Patent
`
`readily admits that “[g]ravity flow filtration systems are well known in the art” and
`
`that filter blocks including at least granular activated carbon and lead sorbents
`
`“have been commercially available for many years.” (Id. 1:66-2:2, 3:25-27).
`
`The ’141 Patent purports to improve on the previously existing gravity-fed
`
`water filters by using water filters having specific formulations and structures. (Id.
`
`27:28-60, 28:29-42, 31:64 - 32:8, Tables 1 and 4). To demonstrate the allegedly
`
`improved performance over previously existing gravity-fed water filters, the ’141
`
`Patent proposes comparing a “Filter Rate and Performance (FRAP) factor”
`
`calculated for each filter to a preferred range of 0-350. (Id. 25:7-9, 14-34; 26:60-
`
`61). According to the ’141 Patent, “[t]he formulations of gravity fed carbon blocks
`
`disclosed are unique in there [sic] ability to meet the required FRAP factor,”
`
`whereas certain commercially available mixed media filters tested failed to meet
`
`the FRAP factor due to their inability to remove particulate (i.e., colloidal) lead.
`
`(Id. 26:57-65). The ’141 Patent further suggests, incorrectly,1 that no “currently-
`
`marketed gravity-flow filters have a FRAP factor of less than 350.” (Id. 27:1-2).
`
`
`1 Due to an apparent error in the calculation of the average filtration unit time over
`lifetime L (f) for Brita® gravity-flow mixed media filter in TABLE 3 of the ’141
`patent, the FRAP factor for the Brita® gravity-flow mixed media filter listed in
`TABLE 5 appears to be incorrect. Using the flow rate data for 3L to 151L (filter
`lifetime) listed in TABLE 3 for the Brita® gravity-flow mixed media filter, the
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`As set forth below, the FRAP factor is a specific formulaic relationship that
`
`merely accounts for various inherent attributes and/or characteristics of a tested
`
`water filter. (Id. 25:5-9, 14-15). As such, the patent owner cannot deny that many
`
`gravity-fed water filters met the FRAP factor at the time of the purported
`
`invention. In fact, various filter structures and formulations2 disclosed in
`
`Knipmeyer3 (KAZ-1009) (by a different inventive entity) would have FRAP
`
`factors between 0 and 350. More importantly, various filters disclosed in, and/or
`
`made obvious by, the prior references set forth below (e.g., Cutler ’483 (KAZ-
`
`1002) and Rinker (KAZ-1004)) would have inherently had FRAP factors between
`
`0 and 350 at the time of the alleged invention of the ’141 Patent.
`
`Although not relied upon as a reference for this Petition, further examples of
`
`known prior art filters with the claimed filter structure and inherently having FRAP
`
`factors between 0 and 350 include the filters disclosed in Saaski ’861, published on
`
`March 27, 2008, and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application Serial No.
`
`60/846,161 (“Saaski ’161,” KAZ-1007), which was filed on September 20, 2006,
`
`
`average filtration unit time over lifetime L (f) is 4.794 min/L, not the 5.5 min/L
`used by the Patent Owner. Calculating the FRAP factor for the Brita® gravity-
`flow mixed media filter using the correct average filtration unit time over lifetime
`L (f) of 4.794 min/L yields a FRAP factor of 323.691, which is less than the
`preferred FRAP factor of 350 of the ’141 Patent.
`2 See cup-shaped filter data of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2008/0110820. (KAZ-1009
`TABLE XIII).
`3 The ’141 Patent claims priority to, but does not incorporate by reference, U.S.
`Patent Pub. No. 2008/0110820. (Id. 1:5-11).
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`and listed inventor Bruce D. Saaski. (KAZ-1006 at 1). Interestingly, although
`
`Saaski ’161 shared a common inventor (Bruce D. Saaski) with, was filed on the
`
`same day as, and was material to Reid-Saaski ’162 (alleged priority document to
`
`the ’141 Patent), the Patent Owner never cited Saaski ’861 or Saaski ’161 in the
`
`’141 Patent and, thus, neither was considered during prosecution. (KAZ-1001).
`
`Kaz USA, Inc. (“Petitioner”) petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) under
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of claims 1-24 (“Challenged Claims”) of
`
`the ’141 Patent, which public records indicate are assigned to Brita LP (“Patent
`
`Owner”), and asserts that there is a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of the claims challenged in this petition (“the Petition”).
`
`This Petition and the supporting declaration of Michael D. Mitchell (KAZ-1012)
`
`demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Challenged Claims are
`
`unpatentable due to anticipation and obviousness. Accordingly, Petitioner requests
`
`IPR of the Challenged Claims.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`A. Real Parties in Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`The real parties in interest are Helen of Troy Ltd. and Petitioner Kaz USA,
`
`Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Helen of Troy Ltd.
`
`B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`Neither Petitioner, Helen of Troy Ltd., nor its subsidiaries are parties to any
`
`past or pending civil action relating to the ’141 Patent.
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel.
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-up Counsel
`
`Paul M. Ulrich (Reg. No. 46,404)
`Ulmer & Berne LLP
`600 Vine Street, Suite 2800
`Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
`T: (513) 698-5156 F: (513) 698-5157
`e-mail: pulrich@ulmer.com
`
`Christopher A. Singh (Reg. No. 61,236)
`Ulmer & Berne LLP
`600 Vine Street, Suite 2800
`Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
`T: (513) 698-5084 F: (513) 698-5085
`e-mail: csingh@ulmer.com
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this
`
`Petition. The above identified Lead Counsel is a registered practitioner associated
`
`with Customer No. 69,082 listed in that Power of Attorney.
`
`D.
`
`Service Information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Please address all correspondence and service to the lead counsel and/or
`
`back-up counsel at the address provided above. Petitioner also consents to
`
`electronic service by e-mail at pulrich@ulmer.com.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`The fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for requesting IPR of the
`
`Challenged Claims was paid at the time of filing this Petition. Petitioner
`
`authorizes the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“the Office”) to charge
`
`Deposit Account No. 501884 for any additional fees that may be due in connection
`
`with this Petition.
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH WORD COUNT
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.24
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d), Petitioner certifies that the word
`
`count for this Petition totals 13,755, which is less than 14,000 allowed under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(i).
`
`V. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’141 Patent is available for IPR and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds identified
`
`herein.
`
`B. Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner requests IPR of claims 1-24 of the ’141 Patent based on the prior
`
`art and grounds set forth below and requests that the Office find each of these
`
`claims to be unpatentable. In support, this Petition includes claim charts for one or
`
`more of these grounds and the declaration of Michael D. Mitchell (KAZ-1012).
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis for Unpatentability
`
`Ground 1
`
`Ground 2
`
`Ground 3
`
`Ground 4
`
`1-12, 16-19,
`22-24
`1-8, 11-19,
`22, 23
`1-8, 11-19,
`22, 23
`9-10, 20-21,
`23-24
`
`Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by
`Knipmeyer
`Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Cutler
`’483
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cutler
`’483
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cutler
`’483 in view of Cutler ’875, Rinker, and Admitted
`Prior Art
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis for Unpatentability
`
`Ground 5
`
`Ground 6
`
`Ground 7
`
`Ground 8
`
`
`
`Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Rinker
`
`1-12, 16-19,
`22, 23
`1-19 and 22-23 Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rinker in
`view of Woodruff
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rinker in
`view of Cutler ’875
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rinker in
`view of Hughes
`
`20-21
`
`24
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE PATENT
`
`A. Background of the Art
`
`The ’141 Patent is directed to gravity-fed water filters including at least
`
`activated carbon and a lead scavenger. (KAZ-1001 at Abst., 15:19-47, 23:14-32).
`
`In the Background of the Invention section, the Patent Owner readily admits that
`
`“[g]ravity flow filtration systems are well known in the art” and that “[f]ilter
`
`blocks for water filtration comprising granular activated carbon (GAC) and binder,
`
`with or without various additives such as lead sorbent, have been commercially
`
`available for many years.” (Id. 1:66-2:2, 3:25-27). The Patent Owner further
`
`acknowledges that binders having “[l]ow melt index polymeric materials having a
`
`melt index less than approximately 1.8 g/10 min as determined by ASTM D 1238
`
`at 190º C. and 15 kg load, such as VHMWPE or UHMWPE, are well known in the
`
`art.” (Id. 14:13-16). See illustrative gravity-flow filter cartridge pitchers
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`(KAZ-1008 at FIG. 1; KAZ-1003 at FIG. 1, respectively).
`
`According to the specification, however, the inventors of the ’141 Patent
`
`believed that there was room to improve the conventional filters used in gravity
`
`flow water filtration devices. (Id. 5:14-15). The ’141 Patent proposes various
`
`formulations of purportedly improved gravity-fed water filters. (Id. 25:5-7). The
`
`’141 Patent suggests that each of the purportedly improved gravity-fed water filters
`
`is capable of meeting a specific performance range defined by a FRAP factor,
`
`which is calculated via a specific formulaic relationship of filter properties such as,
`
`for example, “filter volume, defined usage lifetime, average time of filtration,
`
`and/or lead reduction ability.” (Id. 25:5-12, 14-34; 10:58-13). According to the
`
`’141 Patent, “[t]he nature of the filter meeting the following performance criteria is
`
`independent of the exact embodiment of the filter.” (KAZ-1001 25:9-10).
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`As set forth in Sections I and VI, the formulations of gravity fed carbon
`
`blocks disclosed and claimed in the ’141 Patent are not new in their ability to meet
`
`the required FRAP factor. More importantly, as will be shown, several filters
`
`disclosed and/or made obvious by the prior references set forth below inherently
`
`had FRAP factors between 0 and 350 at the time of the invention of the ’141
`
`Patent.
`
`B.
`
`The Alleged Invention of the ’141 Patent
`
`The ’141 Patent provides “the invention relates to carbon block and granular
`
`filters having rapid flow rates and excellent filtration performance.” (Id. 1:16-18;
`
`see also 5:19-21). The only explicitly recited structure or composition in the
`
`claimed filter is filter media having at least activated carbon and a lead scavenger.
`
`(Id. 34:6-26).
`
`With regard to lead scavengers, the ’141 Patent discloses:
`
`[i]llustrative lead scavengers include metal ion exchange zeolite
`
`sorbents such as Englehard’s ATSTM and aluminosilicates such as
`
`Selecto Scientific’s AlusilTM. Particularly preferred lead scavengers
`
`are zirconia oxides and hydroxides.
`
`(Id. 15:40-47). The alleged invention of the ’141 Patent, however, further
`
`includes:
`
`Some embodiments include filters for use in gravity and low pressure
`
`applications that meet a specific performance range of operation
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`defined by filter volume, defined usage lifetime, average time of
`
`filtration, and/or lead reduction ability. The nature of the filter
`
`meeting the following performance criteria is independent of the exact
`
`embodiment of the filter and thus applicable to mixed-media, carbon
`
`blocks, non-wovens, hollow fibers and other filtration formats.
`
`FRAP Factor
`
`In one approach, the performance range is defined by a factor
`
`accounting for all of the above listed attributes. The factor is
`
`designated the Filter Rate and Performance Factor (FRAP) Factor.
`
`(KAZ-1001 25:5-12; see also (V) claim 1; 5:36-39; 10:11-28).
`
`FIG. 1 from the ’141 Patent (reproduced below) discloses a filter cartridge
`
`10 installed in a pour-through carafe 1. (Id. 12:53-55). The filter cartridge 10
`
`includes a carbon block filter 20 disposed inside. (Id. 12:54-55).
`
`FIG. 2 from the ’141 Patent (reproduced below) discloses the filter cartridge
`
`10 having a cup 14 and a porous composite carbon block filter 20 disposed inside
`
`the cup. (Id. 15:51-56).
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Summary of the Prosecutions of the ’141 Patent and Related
`Family Members
`
`The ’141 Patent
`
`issued from U.S. Serial No. 12/207,284 (“’284
`
`Application”), which was filed on September 9, 2008 and listed Elizabeth L.
`
`Knipmeyer, Toni L. Lynch, Roger P. Reid, and Bruce D. Saaski as inventors.
`
`(KAZ-1001 at 1). The interests of inventors Knipmeyer and Lynch were assigned
`
`to Brita LP as recorded with the USPTO at reel/frame 025233/0134. (KAZ-1013).
`
`An assignment does not appear to be recorded with the USPTO for the interests of
`
`inventors Reid and Saaski. (Id.).
`
`1.
`
`The ’141 Patent Family
`
`The ’141 Patent claims priority to a number of earlier-filed applications
`
`originating from two separate application chains. (KAZ-1001 at 1). More
`
`specifically, the ’284 Application was filed as a continuation-in-part of Knipmeyer
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`(KAZ-1009), filed on October 29, 2007, and U.S. Serial No. 11/858,765 (“Reid-
`
`Saaski ’765,” KAZ-1010), filed on September 20, 2007—both now abandoned.
`
`(KAZ-1001 at 1).
`
`Knipmeyer was filed as a continuation-in-part of Rinker (KAZ-1004), filed
`
`on June 30, 2004, now also abandoned. (KAZ-1001 at 1). Reid-Saaski ’765
`
`claimed priority to U.S. Serial No. 60/846,162 (“Reid-Saaski ’162,” KAZ-1011),
`
`filed on September 20, 2006. (KAZ-1010 at 1). The ’284 Application did not
`
`incorporate by reference Knipmeyer, Reid-Saaski ’765, or Reid-Saaski ’162 via an
`
`explicit incorporation by reference in the specification or through a submission of
`
`an Application Data Sheet. (KAZ-1014 at 1-739). Thus, any subject matter
`
`disclosed in these applications that was not included in the ’284 Application did
`
`not, and cannot, carry forward to the ’284 Application.
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The Prosecution History of the ’141 Patent Family
`
`After multiple prior art rejections of the claims by Examiner Michael Savage
`
`in Knipmeyer, Reid-Saaski ’765, and Rinker, all three applications were
`
`abandoned for failure to respond to pending Office actions.
`
`Knipmeyer published on May 15, 2008, as U.S. Patent Publication No.
`
`2008/0110820 (listing Elizabeth Louise Knipmeyer, Toni L. Lynch, and Bruce D.
`
`Saaski as inventors). (KAZ-1009 at 1). The interests of inventors Elizabeth Louise
`
`Knipmeyer and Toni L. Lynch were assigned to Brita LP as recorded with the
`
`13
`
`U.S. 8,167,141
`U.S.S.N. 12/207,284
`Filed: 09/09/2008
`
`(“the ’141 patent”)
`
`CIP
`
`CIP
`
`U.S.S.N.: 11/858,765
`Filed: 09/20/2007
`
`U.S. 2008/0223797
`Published: 09/18/2008
`
`U.S.S.N.: 11/927,372
`Filed: 10/29/2007
`
`U.S. 2008/0110820
`Published: 05/15/2008
`
`(“Reid-Saaski ’765”)
`
`(“Knipmeyer”)
`
`Priority
`
`CIP
`
`U.S.S.N.: 60/846,162
`Filed: 09/20/2006
`
`(“Reid-Saaski ’162”)
`
`U.S.S.N.: 10/881,517
`Filed: 06/30/2004
`
`U.S. 2006/0000763
`Published: 01/05/2006
`
`(“Rinker”)
`
`

`
`
`
`USPTO at reel/frame 025232/0959. (KAZ-1015). No assignment appears to be
`
`recorded with the USPTO for the interest of inventor Saaski. (Id.)
`
`A Notice of Abandonment for failure to prosecute the Knipmeyer
`
`application was mailed on October 25, 2012, after no response to the fifth Office
`
`action was submitted. (KAZ-1016 at 245-246; see also 115-122, 156-165, 184-
`
`193, 207-217, 235-244). In this fifth Office action, multiple c