`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MPL BRANDS NV, INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BUZZBALLZ, LLC
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-01000
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,932,441
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON, PH.D., IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO.
`11,932,441
`
`
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 11,932,441
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 4
`QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE .................................................... 4
`A.
`Education and Experience .................................................................... 4
`B. Materials Reviewed .............................................................................. 6
`C.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................ 7
`D.
`Summary of Opinions .......................................................................... 8
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................ 9
`A.
`Priority Date of the Claims ................................................................... 9
`B.
`Overview of the Relevant Technology When the ’441 Patent
`Was Filed ............................................................................................ 10
`The ’441 Patent .................................................................................. 12
`C.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................ 16
`D.
`The Challenged Claims ...................................................................... 16
`E.
`Claim Construction............................................................................. 16
`F.
`IV. UNPATENTABILITY OF THE ’441 PATENT CLAIMS ......................... 17
`A.
`Standards for Invalidity ...................................................................... 17
`1.
`Obviousness ............................................................................. 17
`Ground 1: Metzger, Protais, and Kaminski render claims 1-20
`obvious ............................................................................................... 18
`C. Ground 2: Gardiner, Pedmo, and Moen render claims 1-20
`obvious ............................................................................................. 104
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 197
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`LIST OF APPENDICES
`
`
`Appendix A
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Nathan Delson, Ph.D.
`
`Appendix B
`
`A Clino-Cladistic Look at Pull and Push Tab Patents ca. 1950-
`1980, William D. Schroeder,
`https://soda.sou.edu/cans/ANTH02m_schr.xx.02.pdf.
`
`Appendix C
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,286,728 to Fraze
`
`Appendix D
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,234,336 to Neiner
`
`Appendix E
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,522,779 to Jabarin
`
`Appendix F
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,468,785 to Thomasset
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Nathan J. Delson. I am a Senior Teaching Professor at the
`
`University of California, San Diego (UCSD).
`
`2.
`
`I have been engaged by MPL Brands NV, Inc. (“MPL”) as a consultant
`
`in connection with MPL’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`11,932,441 (the “’441 Patent”).
`
`3.
`
`I understand that the ’441 Patent has been assigned to BuzzBallz, LLC
`
`(“BuzzBallz”). BuzzBallz is also referred to as the “Patent Owner” in this
`
`declaration.
`
`4.
`
`This declaration is based on the information currently available to me.
`
`To the extent that additional information becomes available, I reserve the right to
`
`continue my investigation and study, which may include a review of documents and
`
`information that may be produced, as well as testimony from depositions that not yet
`
`been taken.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`
`A. Education and Experience
`
`5.
`
`I obtained my Ph.D. degree in Mechanical Engineering from
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1994.
`
`6.
`
`I have worked for 27 years as a faculty teaching mechanical engineering
`
`design, first at Yale University and now at the University of California at San Diego.
`
`- 4 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`My current position is Senior Teaching Professor in the Department of Mechanical
`
`and Aerospace Engineering. I have performed research in Robotics, Medical
`
`Devices, and Design Education. I have also worked for 2 years in the Aerospace
`
`Industry for United Technologies. I have consulted in mechanical engineering for
`
`companies such as Design Continuum, Sixense, DriveCam, and others. I have
`
`received awards from the National Inventors Hall of Fame and for teaching design.
`
`7.
`
`I have worked on and supervised a wide range of engineering projects.
`
`These projects have included ones with vessels under pressure or vacuum, and
`
`containers with seals to contain liquid or gas. I have worked on a project with a
`
`component that has a pre-weakened area that was created by a thinning of metal
`
`along a line which created a structure that remained intact under certain conditions
`
`but then detached under other conditions. I advise on material selection for products
`
`which include both metal and plastic components. I teach and supervise projects
`
`where Design For Manufacturability (DFM) is a primary consideration and where
`
`design decisions are based on reducing the cost of a product while maintaining its
`
`functional performance. I also teach Computer Aided Design where the geometric
`
`constraints of the parts need to be defined. I am familiar with technology and history
`
`of beverage contain design and fabrication, and how technology has improved over
`
`the years to meet a wide range of needs in the container industry.
`
`- 5 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`8.
`
`This experience is directly relevant to the technology described in the
`
`patents in suit. The above outline of my experience with mechanical devices and
`
`manufacturing is not comprehensive of all of my experience over my years of
`
`technical experience. Additional details of my background are set forth in my
`
`curriculum vitae, attached to this declaration as Appendix A, which provides a more
`
`detailed summary of my education, work experience, publications, and teaching
`
`history.
`
`B. Materials Reviewed
`
`9. My opinions expressed in this declaration are based on documents and
`
`materials identified in this declaration, including the ’441 patent, the prior art
`
`references and background materials discussed in this declaration, and the other
`
`references specifically identified in this declaration. I have considered these
`
`materials in their entirety, even if only portions are discussed here. The following is
`
`an exemplary list of the materials on which I based my opinion.
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1010
`
`Ex. 1011
`Ex. 1012
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 11,932,441 B1 (“’441 patent”)
`Prosecution File History of ’441 patent
`The American Heritage Dictionary
`U.S. Patent No. 8,524,349 B2 to Protais et al. (“Protais”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,141,741 B2 to Metzger et al.
`(“Metzger”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,465,204 to Kaminski (“Kaminski”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,729,495 B2 to Gardiner (“Gardiner”)
`
`- 6 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1013
`Ex. 1014
`Ex. 1017
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,585,123 B1 to Pedmo et al. (“Pedmo”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,024,981 to Brown (“Brown”)
`Handbook of Engineering and Specialty Thermoplastics
`
`10.
`
`I have also relied on my own experience and expertise in mechanical
`
`engineering and design technologies.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`11.
`
`I am not an attorney and offer no legal opinions. I have been informed
`
`about certain aspects of the law for purposes of my analyses and opinions.
`
`12.
`
`I understand that in analyzing questions of invalidity and infringement,
`
`the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) is often
`
`implicated, and the Court may need assistance in determining that level of skill.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that the claims and written description of a patent must be
`
`understood from the perspective of a POSITA. I have been informed that the
`
`following factors may affect the level of skill of a POSITA: (1) the educational level
`
`of the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) the prior-art
`
`solutions to those problems; (4) the pace of innovation; (5) the sophistication of the
`
`technology; and (6) the educational level of active workers in the field. A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity in the art.
`
`- 7 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`14. Based on my experience with packaging design technologies, as well
`
`as my reading of the ’441 patent, it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill with
`
`respect to the subject matter of the ’441 patent at either (a) the time of the alleged
`
`priority date of the ’441 patent in April 2010 or (b) the time the ’441 patent was filed
`
`in November 10, 2023 would have at least an associate’s or a bachelor’s degree in
`
`mechanical, industrial, or manufacturing engineering and would have at least two to
`
`three years of practical experience with designing or manufacturing mechanical
`
`products such as food or beverage packaging.
`
`15.
`
`I am at least a person of ordinary skill in the art and was so on the date
`
`to which the ’441 patent claims priority. As shown by my qualifications, I am aware
`
`of the knowledge and skill possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the priority date of the ’441 patent. In performing my analysis, I have applied
`
`the standard set forth above.
`
`D.
`
`16.
`
`Summary of Opinions
`
`I have reviewed and analyzed the ’441 Patent.
`
`17. Based on my review and analysis, it is my opinion that claims 1-20 of
`
`the ’441 patent are invalid based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground Basis Reference(s)
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`1
`
`2
`
`§ 103 Metzger, Protais, and Kaminski
`
`§ 103 Gardiner, Pedmo, and Brown
`
`1-20
`
`1-20
`
`- 8 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`A.
`
`18.
`
`Priority Date of the Claims
`
`I have been informed that a U.S. patent application may claim the
`
`benefit of the filing date of an earlier patent application if the earlier patent
`
`application disclosed each limitation of the invention claimed in the later-filed U.S.
`
`patent application. I have also been informed that priority is determined on a claim-
`
`by-claim basis so that certain claims of a patent may be entitled to the priority date
`
`of an earlier-filed patent application even if other claims of the same patent are not
`
`entitled to that priority date.
`
`19.
`
`I have also been informed that a patented claim is invalid if the claimed
`
`invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale,
`
`or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed
`
`invention, or the claimed invention was described in an issued patent or a published
`
`patent application that was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the ’441 patent claims a priority date of April 19,
`
`2010. I also understand that the ’441 patent was filed on November 10, 2023, and
`
`issued on March 19, 2023. (Ex. 1001, front page). I am informed and understand that
`
`the effective priority date may, in fact, be no earlier than November 10, 2023, due
`
`- 9 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`to the introduction of previously-undisclosed new matter. For the purposes of this
`
`declaration, the prior art analyzed all predate the earliest priority date April 19, 2010.
`
`B. Overview of the Relevant Technology When the ’441 Patent Was
`Filed
`
`21. For decades, containers having an easy-open-end have been
`
`manufactured using a metal lid. Such metal lids have been attached to containers to
`
`create a variety of food packaging products. Containers with an easy-open lid are
`
`especially popular for marketing canned beverages such as beer or soda. As one
`
`example, the pop-top lid is fairly inexpensive to purchase and is popular among
`
`consumers due to its ease of use. Appendix B summarizes a brief history of
`
`innovation related to metal container lids. Decades of innovations in lid design have
`
`enhanced the ease of opening containers, reduced material and manufacturing
`
`expenses, reduced waste, and mitigated failure modes. The following patents
`
`describe just two examples from this extensive history:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 4,286,728 to Fraze, filed in April 1980 (Appendix C). Fraze
`
`described a “tab for easy opening ends” that included flanges to increase
`
`longitudinal rigidity of the tab. (Appx. C, Abstract). This tab could be
`
`manufactured with thinner sheet stock to reduce material costs, while still
`
`maintaining sufficient rigidity to open a container without bending. (Appx. C,
`
`1:42-59; 2:41-46).
`
`- 10 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,234,336 to Neiner, filed in November 1996 (Appendix D).
`
`Neiner described a stay-on-tab lid that reduced stress across a scored panel on
`
`the lid's surface, thereby reducing the likelihood of stress-induced fatigue
`
`cracking. (Appx. D, Abstract).
`
`22. When beverage containers have metal bodies, the container bodies are
`
`formed from cutting metal and drawing the metal to elongate the metal into a desired
`
`shape. Drawing and elongating the metal places restrictions on the types of shapes
`
`that can be made. Metal beverage container bodies are typically not cast into a mold
`
`in the modern era. Casting metal into a mold is relatively expense in a mass-produced
`
`product due to the requirement to heat the metal until it becomes a molten liquid,
`
`and the need for expensive heat-resistant molds. Thus, it is often difficult to achieve
`
`a distinctive design in order to increase the desirability of the metal beverage
`
`containers. In contrast, plastic containers are easier to mold into a wide range of
`
`shapes, can be mass produced at low cost, and may therefore achieve various designs
`
`in order to increase the attractiveness and market value of the container.
`
`23. Plastic containers for beverages or other food items have been in use
`
`for decades. Many of these containers are made from polyethylene terephthalate
`
`(PET), and many are produced by blow-molding. The following patents are
`
`illustrative snapshots within the history of plastic container innovation:
`
`- 11 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,522,779 to Jabarin, filed in November 1983,
`
`described a process for producing PET containers via blow molding.
`
`(Appendix E).
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,468,785 to Thomasset, claiming priority to a
`
`European patent application filed in November 2007, described
`
`considerations for manufacturing heat-resistant PET containers, for
`
`example for hot-filled containers. (Appendix F).
`
`C. The ’441 Patent
`
`24. The specification of the ’441 patent is directed to a container for storing
`
`a liquid or solid which “may be formed from molding plastic or other appropriate
`
`material and a metal lid to cooperate with the container body which may include a
`
`pop top (or easy-open) lid.” (Ex. 1001, 2:17-20).
`
`25. Figure 1 of the ’441 patent describes a container with a convex side
`
`wall 107 that forms a “truncated spherical body” (id., 2:22-27, Fig. 1), while Figure
`
`2 displays a second container with a cylinder side wall 107 that is substantially
`
`vertical (id., 2:53-57, Fig. 2).
`
`- 12 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`26. Figure 3 of the ’441 patent illustrates the bottom of the container which
`
`includes some depression 115, 115b. (Id., 3:19-30). Figure 4 shows what appears to
`
`be a standard lid with a “pull top” arm that can be pivoted to deform a scored or
`
`- 13 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`weakened area of the lid to create an opening to allow access to the interior of the
`
`container. (Id., 3:31-41).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`27. Figure 5 of the ’441 patent shows an exaggerated view of the lip of the
`
`container that engages with a corresponding lip of the lid to seal the container, which
`
`may hold a liquid or a solid therein. (Id., 3:42-46, 2:64-3:3, Fig. 5).
`
`
`
`
`
`28. Figure 6 of the ’441 patent describes an alternate lid where substantially
`
`the entire lid can be pulled away using the tab. (Id., 3:47-56; Fig. 6). Figures 7 and
`
`8 present more detailed versions of Figure 1 with additional markings that designate
`
`dimensions. (Id., 3:57-64). Figure 9 appears to be similar to Figure 3. (Id., 3:57-64).
`
`29. The ’441 patent has 20 claims and 2 independent claims.
`
`- 15 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`D.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`30. The claims 1-20 of the ’441 patent were filed on November 10, 2023,
`
`as part of patent application no. 18/506,711. (Ex. 1004, 3-38). Those original claims
`
`were allowed in a first-action allowance on February 12, 2024. (Id., 211-215). The
`
`examiner stated that the claims were allowed because Zimmer (U.S. Pat. No.
`
`10,336,496) did not describe the geometrical limitations of claims 1 and 15, as well
`
`as certain features including the container body being made of a resin and the lid
`
`being made of a metal. (Id., 216-227).
`
`The Challenged Claims
`
`I understand that Petitioner is challenging claims 1-20 in the ’441
`
`E.
`
`31.
`
`patent.
`
`F. Claim Construction
`
`32.
`
`I understand that claim terms generally are construed in accordance
`
`with the ordinary and customary meaning they would have to a POSITA at the time
`
`of the invention in light of the claim language, the specification, and the prosecution
`
`history. I understand that dictionaries and other extrinsic evidence may be
`
`considered as well, though such evidence is typically regarded as less significant
`
`than the intrinsic record in determining the meaning of the claim language.
`
`- 16 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`33. For all terms of the challenged claims of the ’441 patent, I have
`
`interpreted them as they would have been understood by a POSITA at the time of
`
`the invention.
`
`34.
`
`It is my opinion that there are no terms that require construction to
`
`address this petition; I do not address terms that may require construction in the
`
`district court.
`
`IV. UNPATENTABILITY OF THE ’441 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`A.
`
`Standards for Invalidity
`
`1. Obviousness
`
`35.
`
`I am informed and understand that a patent cannot be properly granted
`
`for subject matter that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the alleged invention, and that a patent claim directed to such
`
`obvious subject matter is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103. It is also my understanding
`
`that in assessing the obviousness of claimed subject matter, one should evaluate
`
`obviousness in light of the prior art from the perspective of a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time the alleged invention was made (and not from the
`
`perspective of either a layman or a genius in that art). It is my further understanding
`
`that the question of obviousness is to be determined based on:
`
`• The scope and content of the prior art;
`
`- 17 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`• The difference or differences between the subject matter of the claim
`
`and the prior art (whereby in assessing the possibility of obviousness
`
`on should consider the manner in which a patentee and/or a Court has
`
`construed the scope of a claim);
`
`• The level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`of the subject matter of the claim; and
`
`• Any relevant objective factors (the “secondary indicia”) indicating
`
`nonobviousness,
`
`including evidence of any of
`
`the following:
`
`commercial success of the products or methods covered by the patent
`
`claims; a long-felt need for the alleged invention; failed attempts by
`
`others to make the alleged invention; copying of the alleged invention
`
`by others in the field; unexpected results achieved by the alleged
`
`invention; praise of the alleged invention by the alleged infringer or
`
`others in the field; the taking of licenses under the patent by others and
`
`the nature of those licenses; expressions of surprise by experts and those
`
`skilled in the art at the subject matter of the claim; and whether the
`
`patentee proceeded contrary to accepted wisdom of the prior art.
`
`B. Ground 1: Metzger, Protais, and Kaminski render claims 1-20
`obvious
`
`36. U.S. Patent No 8,141,741 B2 was issued to Metzger et al. on March 27,
`
`2012. Metzger was first published on August 27, 2009, as US 2009/0212004 A1.
`
`- 18 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`Metzger is titled “Vacuum Container with Protective Features” and is directed to
`
`containers for food and beverages. (Metzger, 1:15; 1:21-25). Metzger’s “protective
`
`features” improve the container by maintaining a vacuum when the container is used
`
`for hot-fill or including food sterilization processes (see id., 1:45-49; 2:27-31). In
`
`addition, Metzger teaches that the container can resist forces during manufacture,
`
`filling, processing, sales and transport without deformation. (Id., 1:50-53). The
`
`container can be manufactured using a wide array of materials (including plastics;
`
`see id., 3:57-58), can be combined with a variety of container ends to seal the
`
`container (including “pop-top” or “pull top” lids; see id., 3:43-47), and can be used
`
`to contain different types of food materials (including liquids; see id., 3:51-56).
`
`37. Figure 1 below illustrates a perspective view of Metzger’s container
`
`without a container top. Figure 2 below displays a side view illustrating the container
`
`with one example type of container top.
`
`- 19 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`Metzger, Figures 1 and 2
`
`
`
`38. U.S. Patent No. 4,465,204 issued to Kaminski on August 14, 1984, and
`
`is directed to an easy-open pull tab for a can container. (Kaminski, Abstract; 2:65).
`
`The lid (referred to as the “can end”) is manufactured from a “relatively ductile
`
`metal, such as aluminum.” (Id., 3:2-3). The lid attaches to a cylindrical container
`
`through cooperation with a “circumferentially extending raised edge 2." (Id., 2:67-
`
`3:1). A top view of Kaminski’s lid is shown in Figure 1, reproduced below.
`
`- 20 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`Kaminski, Fig 1
`
`
`
`39. U.S. Patent No. 8,524,349 (B2) was issued to Protais et al. on
`
`September 3, 2013, and claims priority to a PCT filed on July 13, 2007. (Ex. 1008).
`
`Protais is directed to a thermoplastic bottom for hollow containers. (Protais, 1:7-9).
`
`The container bottom, as displayed below in Protais’ Figures 1 and 3, contained
`
`various ribs, notches, and grooves that cooperated to function as a strong base for
`
`thinner walls when compared to other container bottoms. (Id., 3:14-25; 6:20-27;
`
`6:56-61). Furthermore, in the case of impact, the design of Protais’ container bottom
`
`allowed for resistance from deformation. (Id., 3:18; 6:47-48).
`
`- 21 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Protais, Figs. 1 and 3
`
`1. Motivation to Combine Metzger, Protais, and Kaminski with
`a Reasonable Expectation of Success.
`
`40. A POSITA would have found it obvious to combine the teachings and
`
`disclosures of Metzger, Protais, and Kaminski. Specifically, the teachings of
`
`Metzger would have directed a POSITA to enhance the body of Metzger’s container
`
`using the improved base design of Protais through inclusion of features such as ribs,
`
`notches, and grooves. In addition, Metzger only explicitly describes a few limited
`
`configurations for the lid attached to Metzger’s container end but does not require a
`
`specific type of lid to be used. (See Metzger, 3:43-46; 9:43-45). A POSITA would
`
`have been guided by the teachings of Kaminski and would have found it obvious not
`
`only to try, but would have found it advantageous to implement Kaminski’s easy-
`
`to-implement lid with marked improvements over other configurations.
`
`- 22 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`41. The combination of these references would have involved only simple
`
`modifications to the base of a plastic container that were already described in Protais.
`
`The combination also only required a simple connection of Kaminski’s lid to the
`
`combined plastic Metzger-Protais container.
`
`42. A POSITA would have also had additional reasons to combine
`
`Metzger, Protais, and Kaminski. First, a POSITA would have been well aware of the
`
`rudimentary steps and methods necessary to combine Metzger’s plastic container
`
`body with Protais’ plastic container base. The resulting combination of Metzger and
`
`Protais would have been an entirely predictable result to a POSITA. Metzger itself
`
`teaches that a plastic container can have “sidewalls 20 and bottom end wall 32 [that]
`
`are contiguously formed or molded from a single piece of material.” (Metzger, 7:58-
`
`60). In the same way, Protais described a thermoplastic container (a “hollow body”),
`
`which is “obtained by blowing or stretch-blowing of a preform, said hollow bodies
`
`comprising a side wall and a bottom joined to said side wall.” (Protais, 4:24-28).
`
`Both Metzger and Protais’ containers were configured to hold liquids. (Metzger,
`
`3:51-55, 4:7-9; Protais, 2:24-35, 2:55-56). Additionally, a POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to use the features of Protais’ base on the container body taught by
`
`Metzger, because the combined container would have increased strength and
`
`resistance to deformation as a result of the ribs, grooves, and notches of Protais’
`
`base. (Id., 3:14-25; 6:20-27; 6:56-61; 6:47-48).
`
`- 23 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`43. The complete Metzger-Protais-Kaminski combination would have also
`
`been a simple combination of known elements. Metzger indicates that many
`
`different types of lids could be implemented with the container body (Metzger, 3:43-
`
`47). Metzger did not describe, in detail, the kinds of lids that could be used by one
`
`creating a container with Metzger’s body. However, Kaminski does describe an
`
`example of such a lid and a POSITA would have found it obvious to look to
`
`Kaminski for teachings of a pull tab lid for a beverage container. (Kaminski, 1:5-8).
`
`Furthermore, a POSITA would have been motivated to use Kaminski’s pull tab lid
`
`with Metzger’s container because Kaminski explains how to configure a lid that
`
`retains the pull tab after the lid is opened for ecological and safety reasons, while
`
`using less metal and being easier to open than other can end styles. (Kaminski, 1:5-
`
`8; 1:14-17; 1:27-31). As such, a POSITA would have found it obvious to implement
`
`the designs of Protais and Kaminski when augmenting the container body of
`
`Metzger.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1:
`
`a.
`
`Element [1.Pre]: “A container comprising:”
`
`44. Metzger disclosed a container. (See Metzger, 3:59-60 (“Referring to
`
`FIG. 1, a perspective view of a container 1 is shown”)). Figure 2 of Metzger,
`
`reproduced below, illustrated “a side view of container 1 . . . including body 10
`
`having a vertical axis 13 and a center portion 21." (Id., 4:12-14).
`
`- 24 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Metzger, Fig. 2
`
`b.
`
`Element [1.A]: “a container body, the container body
`defining a first opening to an interior of the container
`body; and”
`
`45. Metzger disclosed a container body in the form of a “body 10” of
`
`container 1. (Metzger, 4:12-14, Figure 1, Figure 2). Metzger’s container had a “neck
`
`opening 48” that forms a first opening. (Id., 4:40-41, Figure 1).
`
`- 25 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`Metzger, Fig. 1 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`- 26 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`Metzger, Fig. 2 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`46. The container of Metzger was configured to hold contents (see, e.g., id.
`
`at 4:7-11); thus, it had an interior.
`
`- 27 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`c.
`
`Element [1.B]: “a lid connected to the container body
`and covering the first opening to the interior of the
`container body;”
`
`47. Metzger disclosed a variety of lids that could connect to the container
`
`body 10 to cover the first opening, including a “closure 60” illustrated in Figure 2
`
`and a “pull off end 90” shown in Figure 6. (See Metzger, 4:29; 9:43-45; 9:54-59;
`
`Figures 2, 5, and 6). Annotated Figures 2 and 6 of Metzger below illustrate example
`
`lids that could be connected to the container body.
`
`- 28 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`Metzger, Fig. 2 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`- 29 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`Metzger, Fig. 6 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`48. However, although Metzger’s figures illustrated only a couple types of
`
`container ends, Metzger explained that the container could be closed by any of a
`
`variety of suitable ends, including “pop-top” or “pull top” lids. (Metzger, 3:43-47).
`
`- 30 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`49. Kaminski also disclosed a lid in the form of a “can end." (Kaminski,
`
`2:68; Figure 1 (annotated below)). The can end was “of generally circular shape
`
`including a circumferentially extending raised edge 2 for attaching can end 1 to a
`
`suitable cylindrical beverage can 3." (Kaminski, 2:65-3:4).
`
`Kaminski, Fig. 1 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`50. Since Metzger described that its container could be used with any of a
`
`variety of can ends, a POSITA would have found it obvious to use a lid like
`
`Kaminski’s with Metzger’s container because Kaminski provided details about the
`
`configuration of a pull-tab lid that are not explicit in Metzger. A POSITA would
`
`have been motivated to use Kaminski’s lid with Metzger’s container because, as
`
`explained by Kaminski, its features simplify manufacturing, use less metal, and
`
`- 31 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`make the can easier to open, while retaining the pull-tab for ecological and safety
`
`reasons. (Kaminski, 1:14-17; 1:27-31).
`
`d.
`
`Element [1.C]: “wherein the container body is made
`out of a resin;”
`
`51. Metzger disclosed a container that was made of a resin, such as “various
`
`plastics." (Metzger, 3:56-58). It would have been obvious to a POSITA that plastics
`
`can be made out of a resin. (See Ex. 1007 (defining resin as “any of numerous
`
`physical similar polymerized synthetics … to form plastics.”)) It was also
`
`recognized, and repeated in the ’441 patent that the container body is made of plastic.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 2:43-45: “container body may be made of appropriate plastic/synthetic
`
`resin, typically polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin;” see also, id., Abstract, 1:48-
`
`50, 2:15-21, 3:3-11).
`
`e.
`
`Element [1.D]: “wherein the lid is made out of a
`metal;”
`
`52. Metzger disclosed a “container end” (a lid) that was “made of metals,
`
`such as steel or aluminum.” (Metzger, 3:49-50).
`
`f.
`
`Element [1.E]: “wherein the container body comprises
`a container side wall and a base portion connected to
`the container side wall;”
`
`53. The container of Metzger had a container side wall in the form of a
`
`“sidewall 20.” (Metzger, 3:60-62). The container also had a “bottom seal structure
`
`30 at the lower end of container body 10...[that] may couple and seal a bottom end
`
`- 32 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`wall 32 to container body 10." (Id., 7:51-54). Alternatively, the sidewall 20 and
`
`bottom end wall 32 were “contiguously formed or molded from a single piece of
`
`material." (Id., 7:58-60). Thus, the bottom end wall 32 and, optionally, the seal
`
`structure 30, formed a base portion for the container. Figure 2 of Metzger is
`
`annotated below to illustrate the container’s side wall and base portion.
`
`- 33 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`Metzger, Fig. 2 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`54. Protais supplemented Metzger’s disclosure by further describing a
`
`base. Protais generally disclosed a bottom section (e.g., a base portion) for containers
`
`- 34 -
`
`EX-1002 IPR2024-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`made from thermoplastic materials. (Protais, Abstract; 1:7-12). Protais’ bottom
`
`section was designed to improve prior art container bottoms by, for example,
`
`providing a base that was “capable of recovering its initial shape after being dropped
`
`and subsequent deformation." (Id., 3:13-14). Furthermore, the base of Protais was,
`
`“[f]or an identical wall thickness…stronger than most previously known bottle
`
`bottoms” (id., 3:19-21) and, “[f]or a desired strength…can be produced with less
`
`material” (id., 3:23-24).
`
`55. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Metzger and Protais
`
`by using the design of Protais’ container bottom section on Metzger’s container to
`
`achieve the above-described benefits identified by Protais. A mockup of the
`
`combina