`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PLANTLAB GROEP B.V.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________________________
`
`Case: PGR2021-000XX
`U.S. Patent No. 10,667,469
`Issue Date: June 2, 2020
`
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GROWING A PLANT IN AN AT LEAST
`PARTLY CONDITIONED ENVIRONMENT
`___________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BRUCE BUGBEE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`Petitioner Syngenta
`Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I, Dr. Bruce Bugbee, have been retained as an independent consultant by
`
`Syngenta Crop Protection AG (China National Chemical Corporation) (“Syngenta”
`
`or “Petitioner”) in connection with post-grant review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,667,469 (“the ’469 patent”) (EX1001). I am over eighteen years of age, and I
`
`am otherwise competent to testify as to the matters set forth herein if I am called
`
`upon to do so. I have prepared this Declaration for consideration by the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board with respect to the Petition for Post Grant Review of the
`
`’469 patent” filed by Syngenta.
`
`2.
`
`I have written this Declaration at the request of and have been retained by
`
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, which represents Syngenta in connection
`
`with the above-captioned Post Grant Review.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated at my standard hourly rate. My compensation is not
`
`dependent on the outcome of or any issue in relation to this Post Grant Review or
`
`any other post grant proceedings of which I am aware.
`
`4.
`
`In forming my opinions, I relied on my knowledge and experience in the
`
`field and on documents and information referenced in this Declaration. All
`
`statements in my Declaration, unless indicated otherwise, are based on my
`
`knowledge and experience in the field.
`
`Page 1 of 103
`
`Petitioner Syngenta
`Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Specifically, this document contains my opinions about the subject matter in
`
`claims 1-12 of the ’469 patent (“Challenged Claims”) and grounds asserted against
`
`these claims by the Petitioner. I was not asked to provide any opinions that are not
`
`expressed in this document.
`
`II.
`
`6.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`This declaration considers the Challenged Claims of the ’469 patent. Below
`
`I include the opinions I have formed, the conclusions I have reached, and the
`
`reasoning for these opinions and conclusions.
`
`7.
`
`Based on my experience, knowledge of the art at the time of the applicable
`
`priority date, analysis of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and references, and the
`
`understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had of the claims
`
`in light of the specification (disclosure of the patent) as of the applicable priority
`
`date, it is my opinion that the Challenged Claims of the ’469 patent are indefinite,
`
`lack written description and enablement support, are obvious over the prior art, and
`
`are not patent eligible.
`
`III. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`8.
`
`I earned a B.S. in Horticulture from the University of Minnesota in 1975, a
`
`M.S. in Crop Physiology from the University of California, Davis in 1978, and a
`
`Ph.D. in Environmental Plant Physiology from Penn State University in 1981.
`
`Page 2 of 103
`
`Petitioner Syngenta
`Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`9.
`
`I have over forty years of experience with plant nutrition and crop
`
`physiology and over thirty years of research experience in environmental control to
`
`optimize plant growth and yield. As a Ph.D. student at Penn State University from
`
`1978-1981, I studied the effects of root-zone temperature on plant growth as part
`
`of my doctoral research. Over the course of my career starting as a Research
`
`Assistant Professor and Assistant Professor in the Plant Sciences Department at
`
`Utah State University, I have developed systems to optimize plant growth in
`
`controlled environments. I have published articles and have presented at scientific
`
`meetings on the development of methods and systems to optimize plant growth in
`
`controlled environments as early as 1984. I am an author on numerous book
`
`chapters related to controlled environment crop production and I am an author on
`
`over 30 peer-reviewed journals regarding optimal conditions for plant growth and
`
`development.
`
`10.
`
`I have served on national committees related to plant sciences, including
`
`serving as Chair of the Biophysical Sensors and Measurements Community of the
`
`American Society of Agronomy (2014-2015), and Chair of the Crop Physiology
`
`Division of the American Society of Agronomy (2003-2004). I have been honored
`
`as a Distinguished Fellow in both the American Society of Agronomy (2018), and
`
`the American Society of Horticulture (2020). I have also received the D. Wynne
`
`Page 3 of 103
`
`Petitioner Syngenta
`Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`Thorne Career Research Award (2016) and Researcher of the Year Award (2005)
`
`from Utah State University.
`
`11.
`
`I have been a consultant to several commercial companies on the
`
`optimization of plant growth conditions to maximize yield in indoor agriculture,
`
`conditions that are often characterized as having either sole source or supplemental
`
`lighting from light emitting diodes (LEDs).
`
`12.
`
`I am currently a Professor in the Plant, Soils, & Climate Department at Utah
`
`State University, where I teach graduate and undergraduate courses in plant
`
`physiology, plant nutrition and environmental control. I was previously an
`
`Associate Professor in the Plant, Soils, & Biometeorology Department at Utah
`
`State University.
`
`13. Additional details about my employment history, fields of expertise, and
`
`publications are included in my curriculum vita, which is attached.
`
`IV.
`
`14.
`
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED
`
`In forming my opinions, in addition to my knowledge and experience, I have
`
`considered the following documents and things that I have obtained or that have
`
`been provided to me:
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,667,469 to Van Gemert et. al. (“the ’469 patent”)
`
`(EX1001) and its file history (EX1003);
`
`Page 4 of 103
`
`Petitioner Syngenta
`Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Nelson, Paul V., “Greenhouse Operation and Management,” 4th
`
`Edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1991) (“Nelson”)
`
`(EX1005);
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US2001/0047618 to Fang et al. (“Fang”)
`
`(EX1006);
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US2007/0260400 to Morag et al.
`
`(“Morag”) (EX1007);
`
`J.V.M. Vogelezang, “Effect of Root-Zone Heating on Growth,
`
`Flowering and Keeping Quality of Saintpaulia,” SCIENTIA
`
`HORTICULTURAE, 34:101-13 (1988) (“Vogelezang”) (EX1008);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,850,134 to Snekkenes (“Snekkenes”) (EX1009);
`
`Massa et al., “Plant Productivity in Response to LED Lighting,”
`
`HORTSCIENCE, 43:1951-56 (2008) (Massa) (EX1012);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,269,093 to Horaguchi et al., (“Horaguchi”)
`
`(EX1013);
`
`Kimball, B. A., “Theory and performance of an infrared heater for
`
`ecosystem warming,” Global Change Biology, 11:2041-56, (2005)
`
`(“Kimball”) (EX1014); and
`
`Page 5 of 103
`
`Petitioner Syngenta
`Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`
`
`I also did internet research and document review to confirm my
`
`recollection of technology that was available prior to October 13,
`
`2007. Some of the documents are cited in this document.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person
`
`V.
`
`15.
`
`who is presumed to be familiar with the relevant scientific field and its literature at
`
`the time when the patent application was filed.
`
`16.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA), with respect to
`
`the ’469 patent, is someone who would have obtained a bachelors in science (e.g.,
`
`B.S.) in Plant Sciences or a related discipline. Furthermore, a POSA, in my
`
`opinion, could alternatively have had at least five (5) years of experience in
`
`controlled-environment agriculture. This POSA would have had specific
`
`experience with and knowledge of the scientific literature regarding plant
`
`physiology, plant nutrition, and environmental control. Given this experience and
`
`knowledge of the literature, a POSA at that time would have understood and
`
`recognized techniques for optimizing plant growth parameters. Well prior to
`
`October 13, 2007, I was at least one of ordinary skill in the art based on my
`
`education, experience, and knowledge of the literature.
`
`Page 6 of 103
`
`Petitioner Syngenta
`Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`VI. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`17.
`
`This section reviews the relevant legal standards that have been provided to
`
`me by attorneys for Petitioner. I understand that the issues presented in this Post
`
`Grant Review must be considered in view of these legal standards. My
`
`understanding of the legal standards to apply in reaching the conclusions in this
`
`declaration is based on discussions with attorneys for Petitioner, my experience
`
`applying similar standards in other patent-related matters, and my reading of the
`
`documents submitted in this proceeding. These principles are consistent with my
`
`understanding of patent law that I have gained through my professional experience,
`
`which includes those experiences related to being an inventor on at least 2 issued
`
`patents. I am not an attorney, however, and I am relying on these legal standards
`
`only to guide my analysis. In preparing this declaration, I have tried to faithfully
`
`apply these legal standards to the Challenged Claims.
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`18.
`
`I have been instructed that the terms appearing in the ’469 patent should be
`
`interpreted in view of the claim language itself, the specification (disclosure of the
`
`patent), the prosecution history of the patent, and any relevant external (extrinsic)
`
`evidence. The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, which is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art as of one year prior to the earliest priority date claimed by the ’469
`
`Page 7 of 103
`
`Petitioner Syngenta
`Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`patent. I understand that while claim limitations cannot be read in from the
`
`specification, the specification is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed
`
`term. I have followed these principles in reviewing the claims of the ’469 patent
`
`and forming the opinions set forth in this declaration.
`
`B. Written Description
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid if the specification fails to meet
`
`the written description requirement. For a patent claim to be supported by an
`
`adequate written description, the original disclosure contained within the
`
`application must reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor had possession of
`
`the subject matter in the claims as of the filing date and invented what is claimed.
`
`20.
`
`I also understand that, to satisfy the written description requirement, the
`
`patent specification must describe every claim limitation, although the exact words
`
`used in the claim need not be used in the specification. However, I also understand
`
`that the presence of literal (i.e., word-for-word) support in the specification for
`
`claim terms does not necessarily mean that the written description requirement is
`
`satisfied; the analysis instead focuses on whether the patent’s disclosure conveys
`
`ownership of the invention.
`
`21.
`
`I also understand that a description that merely renders the invention obvious
`
`does not necessarily satisfy the written description requirement. The level of detail
`
`required to satisfy the written description requirement depends on the nature and
`
`Page 8 of 103
`
`Petitioner Syngenta
`Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`scope of the claims, and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant
`
`technology. I have further been told that written description requires a description
`
`of the invention, not a mere indication of a result that one might achieve if one
`
`made that invention.
`
`C.
`
`Enablement
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid if it lacks enablement, and that
`
`enablement considers whether a POSA could make or use the claimed invention
`
`from the patent’s disclosure, coupled with the information known in the art,
`
`without “undue” experimentation. I understand undue experimentation to mean
`
`extensive experimentation and so, I have used these terms interchangeably in this
`
`document.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that several factual considerations are involved in determining
`
`whether extensive (undue) experimentation is needed to make or use a claimed
`
`invention. Those factors, called the “Wands” factors from the case in which they
`
`originated, include: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary; (2) the amount
`
`of direction or guidance presented; (3) the presence or absence of working
`
`examples; (4) the nature of the invention; (5) the state of the prior art; (6) the
`
`relative skill of those in the art; (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art,
`
`and (8) the breadth of the claims.
`
`Page 9 of 103
`
`Petitioner Syngenta
`Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid if the description provided by the
`
`patent (i.e., the specification, figures and claims) does not enable the full scope of
`
`the claim. I have also been told that, while a specification does not necessarily
`
`need to disclose what is already well known in the art to be enabling, the
`
`knowledge of a POSA cannot substitute for a basic enabling disclosure in the
`
`patent itself. Thus, while the knowledge of a POSA is relevant, the novel aspect(s)
`
`(if any) of a claimed invention must be enabled in the patent.
`
`D.
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a patent’s claim, viewed in light of the specification and
`
`the prosecution history, must inform a POSA about the scope of the invention with
`
`reasonable certainty; if it does not, it is indefinite. I have further been told that a
`
`claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear in
`
`describing and defining the claimed invention.
`
`26.
`
`I also understand that the claims must provide objective boundaries for a
`
`POSA, and that indefiniteness may arise if the claim language could mean several
`
`different things (or the claim fails to distinguish between multiple possible
`
`interpretations), and where no informed and confident choice is available among
`
`the contending definitions. A patent specification presenting specific working
`
`examples that provide points of comparison could potentially avoid indefiniteness
`
`by providing an objective standard of the claim’s scope.
`
`Page 10 of 103
`
`Petitioner Syngenta
`Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`27.
`
`I also understand that a “subjective” claim term having a scope that depends
`
`on a particular person’s opinion (and that may vary from person to person) may be
`
`indefinite.
`
`E.
`
`Obviousness
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a claim is obvious in light of the prior art if the difference
`
`or differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious, at the time the invention was
`
`made, to a POSA.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that several factual inquiries underlie a determination of
`
`obviousness. These inquiries include (1) scope and content of the prior art, (2) the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the field of the invention, (3) the differences between the
`
`claimed invention and the prior art, and (4) any objective evidence of non-
`
`obviousness. Such objective evidence of non-obviousness includes the invention’s
`
`commercial success, commercial acquiescence (i.e., licensing), a long felt but
`
`unresolved need, the failure of others, skepticism by experts, praise by others,
`
`recognition of a problem, laudatory statements by the infringer, and copying of the
`
`invention by others.
`
`30.
`
`I understand the test for obviousness is an expansive and flexible approach
`
`using common sense. I also understand that any need or problem known in the
`
`field of endeavor at the time of invention can provide a reason for combining the
`
`Page 11 of 103
`
`Petitioner Syngenta
`Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`elements in the manner claimed. I further understand that certain factors may show
`
`obviousness:
`
`a.
`
`a combination of known elements or steps with no change in their
`
`respective functions is likely to be obvious when the combination
`
`does no more than yield predictable results,
`
`b.
`
`a predictable variation of a work or method in the same or a different
`
`field of endeavor is likely to be obvious if a person of ordinary skill
`
`would be able to implement the variation without undue
`
`experimentation,
`
`c.
`
`an invention is likely obvious if it is the use of a known technique to
`
`improve a similar device or method in the same way, unless the actual
`
`application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of the
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`d.
`
`an invention is likely obvious if there existed at the time of invention
`
`a known problem for which there was an obvious solution
`
`encompassed by the patent’s claims,
`
`e.
`
`inventions that were “obvious to try” — chosen from a finite number
`
`of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of
`
`success — are likely obvious, and
`
`Page 12 of 103
`
`Petitioner Syngenta
`Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`f.
`
`an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the art to combine
`
`references, while not a requirement for a finding of obviousness,
`
`remains “a helpful insight” in determining upon which a finding of
`
`obviousness may be based.
`
`F.
`
`Patent Eligibility
`
`31.
`
`I understand that there are categories of subject matter referred to as
`
`“judicial exceptions” or “exceptions” to patentable subject matter and that these
`
`exceptions include: abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena
`
`(including products of nature). I understand that a patent claim in one of these
`
`categories is not eligible for patenting unless the claim as a whole includes
`
`additional limitations amounting to something significantly more than that precise
`
`exception.
`
`32.
`
`I also understand that the test for subject matter eligibility has two parts. The
`
`first step is to determine whether the claim is “directed to” one of the described
`
`judicial exceptions. If so, the second step is to determine whether the claim
`
`includes additional elements that impart an inventive concept that amounts to
`
`significantly more than the ineligible concept itself.
`
`VII. GENERAL FIELD OF THE ART
`
`33.
`
`I understand that October 13, 2008 is the earliest priority date to which the
`
`Patent Owner may claim the ’469 patent is entitled. It has also been explained to
`
`Page 13 of 103
`
`Petitioner Syngenta
`Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`me that U.S. Application No. 14/707,134 (which issued as the ’469 patent) is a
`
`divisional (an application having the same description, but different claims) of U.S.
`
`Application No. 13/123,942 (the ’942 application) and that the ’942 application is
`
`a U.S. national stage application of PCT/NL2009/050617, which was filed on
`
`October 13, 2009, and claims priority to Netherlands Application No. 2002091,
`
`filed on October 13, 2008. (EX1001, Cover). However, because the limitations, or
`
`“elements” of the Challenged Claims of the ’469 patent are not supported or
`
`enabled in any of the earlier-filed applications, I understand that the Challenged
`
`Claims are not entitled to claim priority to any of the earlier-filed applications.
`
`Rather, I understand that the Challenged Claims can claim priority to, at the
`
`earliest, May 8, 2015, which is the filing date of the ’469 patent.
`
`34. Although the Challenged Claims of the ’469 patent are not entitled to
`
`priority to any of the earlier-filed applications, the attorneys for Petitioner have
`
`advised me to assume that the “critical date” for certain prior art is one year prior
`
`to the earliest alleged priority date (e.g., October 13, 2007). I understand that if a
`
`prior art reference pre-dates that critical date, the Patent Owner cannot argue that
`
`the Patent Owner’s invention before that critical date is sufficient to overcome the
`
`prior art.
`
`35. A POSA would have known, as of the critical date, that light, water and
`
`temperature are three of the primary factors responsible for plant growth. Nelson
`
`Page 14 of 103
`
`Petitioner Syngenta
`Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`(EX1005) describes how light, water and temperature influence the rate of carbon
`
`dioxide assimilation of a plant. EX1005, 187-91. The assimilation of carbon
`
`dioxide into carbohydrates is known as photosynthesis. The equation for the inputs
`
`to, and the outputs from, photosynthesis is provided below:
`
`CO2 + water + light energy → carbohydrate + oxygen
`
`Id., 187. This is perhaps the most fundamental equation in plant biology and is
`
`known to students with a high-school education. Photosynthesis uses the green
`
`pigment chlorophyll and generates oxygen as a byproduct. Id., 187-88. For plant
`
`growth, the rate of photosynthesis must exceed the rate of respiration. Id., 199.
`
`Respiration is the reverse of photosynthesis—it converts the carbohydrates
`
`produced during photosynthesis into CO2, water, and energy. Id., 188.
`
`36. At least as of the critical date, it was well known to a POSA that by
`
`regulating temperature (root temperature and leaf temperature) and light, the rate
`
`of photosynthesis and growth development of a plant can be controlled. The light
`
`and temperature are interrelated parameters for plant growth that must be regulated
`
`for optimal plant growth. Id. For example, Figure 11-1 of Nelson shows the effect
`
`of light on the photosynthetic rate, id., Figure 11-3 of Nelson shows the effect of
`
`the quality of light on the photosynthetic rate, id., 189, and Figure 11-13 of Nelson
`
`shows the effect of CO2 concentration, light intensity, and leaf temperature on
`
`photosynthesis, id., 199. Therefore, the temperature and light are optimized such
`
`Page 15 of 103
`
`Petitioner Syngenta
`Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`that photosynthesis is controlled to promote plant growth. Any single parameter of
`
`temperature, light, and CO2 can be rate limiting for photosynthesis if it is
`
`insufficient. Id., 199. Therefore, in order to promote efficient growth of a crop, a
`
`POSA would have understood that the key factors that contribute to
`
`photosynthesis, light and heat, are controlled in an interdependent relationship.
`
`37. As discussed above, visible light is a key input to photosynthesis. Visible
`
`light is a source of energy for plants. If light intensity is below an optimal light
`
`intensity, photosynthesis (and growth) slows down. Id., 187. If light intensity is
`
`above an optimal intensity, growth slows because chloroplasts in plant cells can be
`
`injured. Chloroplasts are the organelles within green cells in which photosynthesis
`
`occurs. Id. The effect of light intensity on the rate of photosynthesis is well known
`
`and varies for different crops. In the absence of sufficient daylight, supplemental
`
`light sources were often used to increase the rate of photosynthesis. See e.g., id.,
`
`191, Figure 11-5.
`
`38. Also, light emitting diodes (LEDs) were widely used as a supplemental light
`
`source in climate-controlled environments well before the critical date. For
`
`example, Massa et al., “Plant Productivity in Response to LED Lighting,”
`
`HORTSCIENCE, 43:1951-56 (2008) (“Massa”) (EX1012) provides a review of the
`
`use of LED lighting – many of the studies cited in this review paper were well
`
`known before the critical date of October 13, 2007. See EX1012. Massa indicates
`
`Page 16 of 103
`
`Petitioner Syngenta
`Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`that studies from 1991 at the University of Wisconsin used LEDs for growing
`
`plants. See, e.g., id., 1. Massa describes that LEDs have tremendous potential as
`
`supplemental sole-source lighting. See id. Massa describes that spectral quality of
`
`LEDs have a dramatic impact on crop anatomy and nutrient uptake. Id., Abstract.
`
`Also, Fang (EX1006) describes the use of LED lighting for multi-layered
`
`cultivation. See, e.g., EX1006, ¶¶ [0008], [0013]-[0015]. For example, Fang
`
`describes “[a] plant growth apparatus that includes a chamber with multiple layers”
`
`and a lamp that includes “a plurality of high intensity red light emitting diodes and
`
`a plurality of blue light emitting diodes.” Id., Abstract. Fang describes some of the
`
`advantages of using LEDs in multilayered, daylight-free plant growth chambers.
`
`Id., ¶ [0004]. For example, Fang describes using LEDs of varying intensity to “find
`
`the optimal light quantity and light quality for the growth of various plants.” Id., ¶
`
`[0014]-[0016]. Fang specifically states the “controlling the frequency and duty
`
`ratio of both LEDs” in a plant growth apparatus. Id., ¶ [0008]. Fang also describes
`
`control and adaption of these LEDs to optimize plant growth. Id., ¶¶ [0008],
`
`[0013]-[0015].
`
`39.
`
`It was well known by October 13, 2007 that all crops have an optimal
`
`temperature range for photosynthesis and growth and that temperature is
`
`determined by the input of heat to the plant. EX1005, 187. This is in part because
`
`biochemical reactions in the plant are controlled by enzymes, which are heat-
`
`Page 17 of 103
`
`Petitioner Syngenta
`Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`sensitive. Id., 199. The temperature of the leaves and roots dictates the rate of
`
`reaction of the enzymes for photosynthesis. Id.
`
`40. As of the critical date, it was well known to a POSA to control or regulate
`
`the temperature of the leaves and roots of a plant in order to control the rate of
`
`photosynthesis. Depending on the type of light or heating source, systems are
`
`needed to remove or add heat for optimal plant growth. For example, Vogelezang
`
`(EX1008) describes the effect of root-zone heating on growth and flowering of a
`
`plant. EX1008, Abstract. Vogelezang notes that root temperature can control a
`
`number of growth processes in a plant. Id., 1. Vogelezang utilizes a heating bench
`
`with slots for heating tubes to control the root temperature. Id., 2. For example,
`
`Vogelezang shows water at a desired temperature being fed into the heating tubes
`
`disposed in the soil to control the root zone temperature. Id., 3. This was a well-
`
`known technique to remove excess heat from the roots of the plant.
`
`41. Other researchers had also shown the impact of the root zone temperature on
`
`photosynthesis well before the critical date. Nelson describes fluid conduit systems
`
`for controlling root zone temperature. EX1005, 58; Figure 3-13 (showing hot water
`
`heat pipe in plant beds). Nelson describes pipes installed “in the framework of
`
`benches beneath the table top,” in the beds of plants, and on the sides of plant beds
`
`for the purpose of “bringing heat distribution system[s] back down to the soil level.
`
`Id. Nelson describes that “[h]ot water [is used] in these systems because
`
`Page 18 of 103
`
`Petitioner Syngenta
`Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`temperatures lower than that of steam are required to avoid burning of plants,” and
`
`hot water helps to ensure uniform heating throughout the crop growth system. Id.
`
`A POSA would have understood that the root heat systems described in Nelson
`
`function via heat exchange. Also, Vogelezang describes the use of a bench heating
`
`system for controlling root zone temperature. EX1008, 2, Fig. 1. In addition,
`
`Snekkenes (EX1009) describes the use of air as a fluid for heating the roots of
`
`plants grown in a closed system. EX1009, 2:33-49. For example, Snekkenes
`
`describes flowing climatically conditioned air between a base and the plant support
`
`device. Id. In this manner Snekkenes describes controlling the difference between
`
`the root temperature and temperature of the foliage (leaves) of the plants. Id., 4:18-
`
`21. Specifically, Snekkenes states that “the root temperature of the plants should
`
`not exceed the temperature of the foliage by more than about 8° C.” Id. 1:28-30.
`
`42.
`
`It was also well known prior to the critical date to use infrared heaters to
`
`heat plant leaves. For example, U.S. Patent No. 5,269,093 to Horaguchi et al.
`
`(“Horaguchi”) (EX1013) states that it was known that infrared radiation at
`
`different wavelengths effect photosynthesis and photomorphogenesis. See EX1013,
`
`1:32-49. Similarly, Kimball, B. A., “Theory and performance of an infrared heater
`
`for ecosystem warming,” Global Change Biology, 11:2041-56, (2005) (“Kimball”)
`
`(EX1014) describes that infrared heaters for warming vegetation was appealing
`
`because “warming should be similar to normal solar heating of the leaves, and it
`
`Page 19 of 103
`
`Petitioner Syngenta
`Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`should be energetically efficient because one would heat the leaves directly
`
`without having to overcome a boundary layer resistance if the air were heated
`
`first.” EX1014, 2. Nelson also describes the advantages of heating the leaves using
`
`infrared heat and its effects on photosynthesis. See EX1005, 51-52. For example,
`
`Nelson describes one advantage of infrared heaters includes their ability to heat
`
`objects in the path of the infrared radiation while not heating the air through which
`
`the infrared radiation travels. Id. Nelson also states the advantages of soil-level
`
`heat distribution systems consisting of hot water pipes installed in plant beds. Id.,
`
`58-59. Thus, as noted by Nelson, both the root temperature and the leaf
`
`temperature are important to plant growth.
`
`43. As of the critical date of the patent, a POSA would have known how to
`
`optimize variables associated with plant growth. Such variables include, for
`
`example, leaf temperature, root temperature, and the amount of light. It was well
`
`known that growth of a plant can be regulated by adjusting the amount of light and
`
`heat (root temperature and leaf temperature) in optimal ratios.
`
`44. At least as of the critical date, it was known that the root temperature and the
`
`leaf temperature are interrelated. Nelson describes the importance of interrelated
`
`regulation of heat and light to optimize photosynthesis of plants grown in
`
`controlled environments. Id., 199-200. A POSA seeking to optimize plant growth
`
`in a grow room would have known to control the interrelated factors of heat and
`
`Page 20 of 103
`
`Petitioner Syngenta
`Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`light to optimize photosynthesis and plant growth. For example, as the intensity of
`
`light increases, the heat to the leaves increases, and therefore the amount of heat to
`
`the plant (leaves or roots) needs to be regulated. Additionally, a POSA would have
`
`understood the importance of regulating the temperature difference between the
`
`foliage and root system of the crop to optimize plant health. EX1009, 1:15-20.
`
`45.
`
`Thus, as exemplified by these and other references described herein, control
`
`of the leaf temperature, root temperature, and electric (i.e., artificial) light to
`
`optimize plant growth was standard in the art before the critical date.
`
`VIII. THE ’469 PATENT AND PROSECUTION HISTORY
`
`A.
`
`Specification
`
`46.
`
`The ’469 patent “relates to a system for growing a plant in an at least partly
`
`conditioned environment, comprising a cultivation base for receiving a culture
`
`substrate with a root system of the plant therein, root temperature control means
`
`which are able and adapted to impose a predetermined root temperature on the root
`
`system, and comprising lighting means which are able and adapted to expose
`
`leaves of the plant to actinic artificial light.” EX1001, 1:9-16. The ’469 patent
`
`states that:
`
`[t]he invention is based here on the insight that three factors are
`essentially responsible for a successful plant development, i.e. the
`photosynthesis, the sap flow in the plant pushed upwards under the influence
`of a prevailing root pressure, and the carbon dioxide assimilation through
`mainly the leaf system of the plant, and that these three factors must at all
`
`Page 21 of 103
`
`Petitioner Syngenta
`Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`times be adapted to each other in order to actually realize an optimal plant
`growth.
`
`Id., 2:38-46. Figure 1 (excerpted below) describes an embodiment of the multilayer
`
`cultivation system that attempts to optimize these three well-known parameters for
`
`plant growth. The multilayer cultivation system is provided with an artificial light
`
`source 20, a leaf heating means 30, and a closed conduit system 12 “through which
`
`a heat-carrying medium such as water of a controlled temperature can be guided in
`
`order to control a temperature of the root system.” Id., 5:4-50.
`
`Id., Fig. 1 (annotated).
`
`Fig. 1
`
`47. Although a control is not shown or described in Figure 1, claim 1 states “a
`
`control of the leaf heating means, the root temperature heat exchange system and
`
`Page 2