UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PLANTLAB GROEP B.V.
`
`Patent Owner
`___________________________________
`
`Case: PGR2021-_____
`
`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
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES .............................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .................................. 1
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .............................................. 1
`
`Fees (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(b) and 42.203) .............................................. 1
`
`Designation of Counsel (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4)) ............. 2
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ....................................... 2
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 2
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING......................................................................... 4
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES ......................................................... 4
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Technology of the ’469 Patent .............................................................. 5
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 7
`
`VI. The ’469 Patent is PGR Eligible ....................................................................13
`
`A.
`
`The ’469 patent is not entitled to the filing dates of any earlier-
`filed priority applications ....................................................................13
`1.
`The ’469 patent and the priority documents do not enable
`or provide written description support for the claimed
`limitation of “the mutual dependence requires that a
`change in any one of these parameters results in a change
`to at least one of the other two of these three parameters
`in a “defined proportion” (claim 1) or its dependent
`claims ........................................................................................15
`There is no support in the ’469 patent or priority
`documents for the claim term “linearly proportional” as
`
`2.
`
`i
`
`

`

`3.
`
`4.
`
`required for sufficient written description under Section
`112(a) ........................................................................................17
`The ’469 patent and the priority documents do not enable
`or provide written description support for “a control of
`the leaf heating means, the root temperature heat
`exchange system and the artificial light source that is
`capable of imposing a mutual dependence on the leaf
`temperature, the root temperature and the exposure of
`said crop to said artificial light” ................................................18
`The ’469 patent and the priority documents do not enable
`or provide written description support for “a control of
`the leaf heating means, the root temperature heat
`exchange system and the artificial light source ... wherein
`changes in leaf temperature and root temperature [] are
`directly proportional” ................................................................20
`
`B.
`
`The effective date of the challenged claims of the ’469 patent is
`after March 16, 2013 ...........................................................................20
`
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................21
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...........................................................................22
`
`IX. FULL STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE RELIEF
`REQUESTED ................................................................................................23
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Grounds 1-2 .........................................................................................23
`1.
`Ground 1: The ’469 patent fails to describe what is
`controlled or how that control is accomplished ........................24
`Ground 2: With no working examples provided, undue
`experimentation is required to practice the claimed
`invention ....................................................................................29
`
`2.
`
`Grounds 3-4 .........................................................................................32
`1.
`Ground 3: “Defined proportion” is an added claim term
`without support .........................................................................33
`
`ii
`
`

`

`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`2.
`
`Ground 4: Nothing is taught regarding how to control
`three parameters in any proportion, much less a “defined
`proportion” ................................................................................35
`
`Grounds 5-6 .........................................................................................36
`1.
`Ground 5: No description is found in the ’469 patent on
`how three parameters are controlled to achieve directly
`proportional changes to leaf and root temperatures ..................36
`Ground 6: No examples are found in the ’469 patent
`regarding how to control three parameters to achieve
`directly proportional changes to leaf and root
`temperatures ..............................................................................38
`
`2.
`
`Grounds 7-10: Claim 1 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as
`indefinite. .............................................................................................39
`1.
`Ground 7: Claim 1 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
`as indefinite for use of the term “defined proportion” ..............40
`Ground 8: Claim 1 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
`as indefinite for use of the term “substantially daylight-
`free” ...........................................................................................42
`Ground 9: Claim 1 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as
`indefinite for use of the term “irrigation and fertilization
`means” .......................................................................................43
`Ground 10: Claim 1 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
`as indefinite for use of the term “control” ................................44
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Ground 11: Claims 1-12 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`based on Nelson in view of Fang, Morag, and Vogelezang ...............45
`1.
`Overview of the Primary Prior Art ...........................................47
`a)
`Nelson (EX1005) ............................................................47
`b)
`Fang (EX1006) ...............................................................48
`c)
`Morag (EX1007) .............................................................49
`d)
`Vogelezang (EX1008) ....................................................49
`Claims 1-12 are obvious ...........................................................50
`
`2.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`a)
`b)
`
`Claim 1 ............................................................................51
`Claims 2-12 .....................................................................70
`
`F.
`
`Ground 12: Claims 1-12 of the ’469 patent are invalid under 35
`U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to unpatentable subject matter ...........77
`1.
`Step 1: Claims 1-12 of the ’469 patent are directed to the
`abstract idea of controlling carbon dioxide assimilation ..........78
`Step 2: Claims 1-12 of the ’469 patent do not recite an
`inventive concept ......................................................................80
`
`2.
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................82
`
`iv
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Alice Corp Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) ............ 77, 80
`Am. Axle & Mfg v. Neapco Holdings LLC, 967 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir.
`2020) ...................................................................................................................77
`Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Appeal No. 2020-1074 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2021) ................31
`Apple Inc. v. Memory Integrity, LLC, IPR2015-00163 (PTAB) .............................29
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ... 24, 28, 34,
`38
`Atl. Research Mtg. Sys. v. Troy, 659 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................24
`BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d
`1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..........................................................................................82
`ChargePoint v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................80
`Chiron Corp v. Genentech, Inc., 363 F.3d. 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..........................31
`DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co.,
`464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..........................................................................46
`Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............79
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Genentech, Inc., No. PGR2019-00043 (PTAB) .........................14
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ..................28
`Ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d 1641 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) ........................41
`Gnosis S.p.A. v. South Alabama Med. Sci., IPR2013-00116 (PTAB) .....................21
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966) ...............................45
`Idenix Pharms. v. Gilead Sciences Inc., 941 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........ 30, 34
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..............................................................46
`
`v
`
`

`

`In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................30
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............ 40, 42
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................. 21, 45, 46, 69
`Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S.
`66 (2012) ...................................................................................................... 77, 80
`Nat’l Recovery Techs., Inc. v. Magnetic Separation Sys., Inc., 166 F.3d
`1190 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ..........................................................................................29
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014) ..............................40
`Nuvo Pharms v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs, 923 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ......................28
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...........45
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................. 22, 40
`Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559
`(Fed. Cir. 1997) ...................................................................................................28
`SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..........................79
`Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Sys., 665 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir.
`2012) ...................................................................................................................30
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............78
`Trading Techs Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..................78
`Trs. of Bos. Univ. v. Everlight Elecs. Co., 896 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............29
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commnc’n, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................................................82
`US Endodontics, LLC v. Gold Standard Instruments, LLC, PGR2015-
`00019 (PTAB) .............................................................................................. 13, 14
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................. 43, 44
`State Cases
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`vi
`
`

`

`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ...................................................................................... 47, 48, 49
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................ passim
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) ........................................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) ........................................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f) ............................................................................................ passim
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1) ................................................................................................. 1
`35 U.S.C. §100(i)(1)(A) ...........................................................................................14
`35 U.S.C. §100(i)(1)(B) ...........................................................................................14
`35 U.S.C. §119(e)(1) ................................................................................................14
`35 U.S.C. §120 .........................................................................................................14
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) ..............................................................................................40
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.404(b)(2) ............................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 2
`37 CFR § 42.204(b)(1) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Cases
`January 16, 2021 Memorandum entitled “Approach to Indefiniteness
`under 35 U.S.C § 112 In AIA Post-Grant Proceedings” from Director
`Iancu ....................................................................................................................40
`MPEP § 2159.04 ......................................................................................................13
`
`viii
`
`

`

`PETITIONER
`EXHIBIT
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`DESCRIPTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,667,469 to Van Gemert et al.
`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Bugbee
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 10,667,469 to Van Gemert et
`al.
`File History for U.S. Patent App. No. 13/123942 to Van
`Gemert et al.
`Paul V. Nelson, Greenhouse Operation and Management (4th
`ed. 1991)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0047618 to Fang et al.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0260400 to Morag et al.
`J.V.M. Vogelezang, Effect of Root-Zone Heating on Growth,
`Flowering and Keeping Quality of Saintpaulia, SCIENTIA
`HORTICULTURAE 34:101-13 (1988)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,850,134 to Snekkenes
`Comparison of NL2002091 and PCT/NL2009/050617
`Comparison of PCT/NL2009/050617 and U.S. Patent App.
`No. 14/707,134
`G.D. Massa et al., Plant productivity in response to LED
`lighting, HORTSCIENCE 43:1951-56
`U.S. Patent No. 5,269,093 to Horaguchi et al.
`B.A. Kimball, Theory and performance of an infrared heater
`for ecosystem warming, GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY 11:2041-
`56 (2005)
`Translation of NL2002091 for purposes of international
`publication
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Declaration of Rachel J. Watters re Vogelezang
`Images of Vogelezang with Library Date Stamp
`
`ix
`
`

`

`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A.
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The Petitioner is Syngenta Crop Protection AG. Syngenta Crop Protection
`
`AG is a wholly-owned non-U.S. subsidiary of Syngenta AG. Syngenta AG is a
`
`wholly-owned non-U.S. subsidiary of Syngenta Group Co., Ltd. Syngenta AG is
`
`not publicly traded and is the 100% shareholder of Syngenta Crop Protection AG.
`
`Syngenta Crop Protection LLC is also a real-party-in-interest.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`As of the filing date of this Petition, Petitioner is unaware of any matter
`
`involving the ’469 patent pending in any United States court or administrative
`
`agency. Related legal disputes pending in Switzerland (Syngenta Crop Protection
`
`AG v. PlantLab B.V.) and the Netherlands (PlantLab B.V. & PlantLab Groep B.V.
`
`v. Syngenta Seeds B.V.).
`
`C.
`
`Fees (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(b) and 42.203)
`
`This Petition requests review of twelve (12) claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,667,469 (“the ’469 patent”) and is accompanied by a payment of $47,500.00,
`
`which includes the $20,000.00 post grant review request fee, and the $27,500.00
`
`post-institution fee. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b). Thus, this Petition meets the fee
`
`requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1). The Board is hereby authorized to
`
`charge any additional fees required by this action to Deposit Account No. 20-1430.
`
`1
`
`

`

`D.
`
`Designation of Counsel (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`Allison W. Dobson
`(Reg. No. 68,757)
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1001 West Fourth Street
`Winston-Salem, NC 27101
`336.607.7300 (telephone)
`336.607.7500 (facsimile)
`adobson@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`John Alemanni
`(Reg. No. 47,384)
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1400
`Raleigh, NC 27609
`919.420.1700 (telephone)
`919.420.1800 (facsimile)
`jalemanni@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Cynthia B. Rothschild
`(Reg. No. 47,040)
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1001 West Fourth Street
`Winston-Salem, NC 27101
`336.607.7300 (telephone)
`336.607.7500 (facsimile)
`crothschild@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`E.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Please direct all correspondence regarding this Petition to lead and back-up
`
`counsel at the above addresses. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of
`
`Attorney accompanies this Petition. Petitioner also consents to electronic service
`
`by email.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The claims of the ’469 patent should be cancelled. Independent claim 1
`
`merely recites controlling three parameters—light, leaf temperature, and root
`
`2
`
`

`

`temperature—in a way that is “directly proportional” in order to control a plant’s
`
`assimilation of carbon dioxide. Dependent claims 2-11 recite commonly used
`
`fixtures used for plant cultivation. And dependent claim 12 adds that the “mutual
`
`dependence requires and necessitates that any change to any one of the three
`
`parameters results in a change to both of the other two parameters in a defined
`
`proportion.”
`
`The ’469 patent fails to describe what the control mechanisms are for some
`
`of these parameters or how to they are to be controlled, and thus claims 1-12 are
`
`indefinite, not enabled, and/or lack written description support and are therefore
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Further, the limited subject matter that is described
`
`in the ’469 patent and arguably within the scope of the claims was well known at
`
`the time of alleged invention. Thus, claims 1-12 are also invalid as obvious.
`
`Finally, the claim are directed to the abstract idea of controlling carbon dioxide
`
`assimilation by varying the three parameters in a mutually dependent way. And the
`
`claims do not recite an inventive concept for doing so and are thus also invalid
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`This Petition demonstrates at least a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`will prevail. Thus, post grant review of the ’469 patent should be instituted.
`
`3
`
`

`

`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner hereby certifies that pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a): (1) the
`
`’469 patent issued on June 2, 2020, from Application No. 14/707,134, filed on
`
`May 8, 2015, and is therefore available for PGR; (2) Petitioner has not been served
`
`with a complaint alleging infringement of any of the claims of the ’469 patent and
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting post grant review of the ’469 patent on
`
`the grounds identified herein; and (3) Petitioner has not filed a complaint
`
`challenging the validity of the ’469 patent. This Petition is being filed in
`
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a).
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES
`
`Claims for Which Post Grant Review is Requested Under 37 CFR
`1.
`§ 42.204(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner requests post grant review of claims 1-12 of the ’469 patent.
`
`The Statutory Ground(s) and Specific Art on Which the
`2.
`Challenge is Based Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.404(b)(2)
`
`This Petition requests cancellation of claims 1-12 of the ’469 patent based
`
`on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`Claims
`
`Basis for Challenge
`
`1-6
`
`112(a)
`
`1-12
`
`Written Description/Enablement
`
`4
`
`

`

`7-8
`
`9-10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`112(b)
`
`112(f)
`
`103
`
`101
`
`1-12
`
`1-12
`
`1-12
`
`1-12
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`Obvious over Nelson in view of
`Fang, Morag, and Vogelezang.
`
`Ineligible Subject Matter
`
`Regarding the specific prior art, claims 1-12 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 as obvious based on Nelson in view of Fang, Morag, and Vogelezang.
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND
`A.
`Technology of the ’469 Patent
`
`The ’469 patent to Van Gemert is entitled “System and Method for Growing
`
`a Plant in an at Least Partially Conditioned Environment.” EX1001, Cover. Claim
`
`1, the sole independent claim challenged in this petition, recites:
`
`A system for producing and harvesting a crop, comprising:
`a substantially daylight-free, at least partly conditioned
`environment, said environment comprising a multilayer cultivation
`system having a number of cultivation layers above one another, each
`of said cultivation layers above another comprising:
`a cultivation base for receiving a root system of the crop
`therein;
`irrigation and fertilization means to provide the crop with
`sufficient water and necessary nutrients;
`an artificial light source that exposes the leaves of each plant of
`the crop to artificial actinic light having a lighting spectrum that is
`adapted to an intended photosynthesis and/or mode of growth of the
`
`5
`
`

`

`plant to be cultivated, said artificial light source comprising a set of
`light-emitting diodes, said diodes being able and adapted to emit
`radiation at different wavelengths;
`a root temperature heat exchange system that controls the root
`temperature of the root system, the root temperature heat exchange
`system comprising a conduit system for receiving therein, during
`operation, a fluid flow with a controlled temperature, said fluid
`entering into heat-exchanging contact with said root system of said
`plant;
`
`leaf heating means that impose on the leaves of the plant a leaf
`temperature that differs from an ambient temperature within said
`environment; and
`wherein a control of the leaf heating means, the root
`temperature heat exchange system and the artificial light source that is
`capable of imposing a mutual dependence on the leaf temperature, the
`root temperature and the exposure of said crop to said artificial light,
`within each layer,
`wherein the mutual dependence requires that any change to any
`one of these three parameters results in a change to at least one of the
`other two of these three parameters in a defined proportion, and
`wherein changes in leaf temperature and root temperature are directly
`proportional,
`so as to control the carbon dioxide assimilation management of
`the leaves, by regulating the root temperature and the leaf temperature
`that is different from the ambient temperature, and a mutual ratio and
`intensity of various light components which play a part in the
`photosynthesis and growth development of the plant.
`EX1001, 6:47-7:24. Dependent claims 2-12 all depend directly or indirectly
`
`on claim 1. Claims 2 through 4 further limit aspects of the light source. See
`
`id., 7:26-8:4. Claim 5 limits the leaf heater to an infrared heater. See id., 8:5-
`
`7. Claims 6-11 further limit the system setup and materials. See id., 8:8-23.
`
`Claim 12 further limits the mutual dependence so it requires that “any
`
`6
`
`

`

`change to any one of the three parameters results in a change to both of the
`
`other two parameters in a defined proportion.” Id., 8:24-27.
`
`Figure 1 discloses an embodiment of the multilayer cultivation system (10)
`
`of the ’469 patent. It depicts an artificial light source (20), a leaf heating means
`
`(30), and a closed conduit root temperature control system (12). See id., 5:4-8,
`
`5:25-26, 5:47-48, Fig. 1.
`
`Fig. 1
`
`Id., Fig. 1 (annotated).
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`U.S. Application No. 14/707,134 (the ’134 Application) was filed on May 8,
`
`2015 as a divisional of U.S. Application No. 13/123,942 (the ’942 Application),
`
`filed on July 7, 2011, a U.S. national stage entry of PCT/NL2009/050617, filed on
`
`7
`
`

`

`October 13, 2009, and claims priority to Netherlands Application No. 2002091,
`
`filed on October 13, 2008. EX1001, Cover. The ’469 patent lists the assignee as
`
`Plantlab Groep B.V., Berghem, NL (“Patent Owner”). Id.
`
`In response to a restriction requirement, Patent Owner elected system
`
`claims. EX1003, 68. On October 16, 2015, the Office issued a non-final office
`
`action provisionally rejecting claims 1-7 on the ground of nonstatutory double
`
`patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8, 10-12, 14-20 of copending
`
`application no. 13/123,942;1 rejecting claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
`
`indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) for reciting “heater means” without reciting
`
`sufficient structure; rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,009,029 to Wittlin (“Wittlin”) in view of U.K.
`
`Patent No. 1402261 to Ferguson (“Ferguson”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,269,093 to
`
`Horaguchi et al. (“Horaguchi” or EX1013); rejecting claims 3 and 4 under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wittlin in view of Ferguson and
`
`Horaguchi, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0047618 to
`
`Fang et al. (“Fang” or EX1006); and rejecting claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Wittlin in view of Ferguson and Horaguchi, and further in
`
`view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0260400 to Morag (“Morag” or
`
`1 This provisional rejection was maintained throughout examination of the ’134
`Application until its allowance.
`
`8
`
`

`

`EX1007) and Taylor and Rowley, “Plants under Climatic Stress” Plant Physiol.,
`
`47, 713-718 (1971), (“Taylor”). Id. at 78-84.
`
`Patent Owner filed a response April 15, 2016, and, inter alia, amended claim
`
`1 to recite the “artificial light source comprises a set of light-emitting diodes, said
`
`diodes being able and adapted to emit radiation at different wavelengths, and a
`
`control is provided between the leaf heater, the root temperature controller and the
`
`artificial light source that imposes a mutual dependence on the leaf temperature,
`
`the root temperature and the exposure of said crop to said artificial light.” Id., 115-
`
`19. Additionally, Patent Owner added new claims 13-18 directed to additional
`
`features of the light emitting diodes and the multilayer cultivation base. Id. The
`
`Patent Owner stated the following regarding the claimed invention:
`
`The claims further require that the leaf temperature difference compared to
`the environment, the root temperature and the exposure to artificial light of
`the crop are regulated in dependence of one another, while the root system
`may either be heated or cooled by the root temperature control means. The
`invention is based on the recognition that by regulating precisely these three
`factors in relation to one another in a conditioned atmosphere, an optimal
`control may be obtained over the development and development duration of
`the crop concerned.
`
`Id., 122-23.
`
`The Office issued a final office action, including a rejection of claims 1-6
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wittlin in view of Ferguson,
`
`Horaguchi, Fang, Morag, and Taylor, and citing additional references U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,617,057 to May et. al. (“May”), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0216398
`
`9
`
`

`

`to Townsley (“Townsley”), U.S. Patent No. 4,493,163 to Monbrison
`
`(“Monbrison”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,105,309 to Takayanagi (“Takayanagi”) for
`
`the dependent claims. Id., 134-47.
`
`Patent Owner filed a response December 9, 2016, arguing that the prior art
`
`must disclose a “leaf heating means in combination with root temperature control
`
`means to gain full control over the fluid flow through the plant in a conditioned
`
`environment, while at same time the crop is held in a daylight free environment
`
`under artificial actinic light to have full control over the exposure of the crop to
`
`photo synthetic active radiation.” Id., 202.
`
`On January 30, 2017, the Office issued an advisory action maintaining the
`
`rejections and noting that the prior art of record established the mutual relationship
`
`between the leaf and root temperature and that “[t]he parameters claimed by the
`
`application are known plant environmental growth/production parameters.” Id.,
`
`217.
`
`Patent Owner filed a Request for Continued Examination (“RCE”) and
`
`response on May 9, 2017, amending claim 1 to recite inter alia “so as to control
`
`carbon dioxide assimilation management of the leaves, by regulating the root
`
`temperature and the leaf temperature that is different from the ambient
`
`temperature, and a mutual ratio and intensity of various light components which
`
`play a part in the photosynthesis and growth development of the plant.” Id., 232.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent Owner argued that the cited art failed to disclose a control that managed
`
`such aspects as the carbon dioxide assimilation management of the leaves by
`
`regulating the root temperature, a leaf temperature that is different from the
`
`ambient temperature, and a mutual ratio and intensity of various light components
`
`which play a part in the photosynthesis and growth development of the plant. Id.,
`
`236.
`
`Prosecution continued for several more rounds, with the Office maintaining
`
`that Patent Owner argued features of the invention that were more explicit than the
`
`actual claim language, that the term “mutual dependence” was vague as the
`
`application did not disclose ranges/limit of the relationship or define the
`
`relationship, and that the claim language “merely claims already known
`
`components of plant environment and controls them/adjusts them.” See id., 324
`
`(Advisory Action of January 16, 2018), and 332 (Examiner Interview Summary of
`
`February 14, 2018).
`
`Patent Owner filed an RCE and response on June 11, 2018, amending claim
`
`1 to recite “wherein the mutual dependence requires that a change to any one of
`
`these three parameters results in a change to at least one of the other two of these
`
`three parameters in a defined proportion.” Id., 340. Additionally, new claims 19
`
`and 20 were added. Id., 343-44. Claim 19 recited that “the mutual dependence
`
`requires and necessitates that any change to any one of the three parameters results
`
`11
`
`

`

`in a change to both of the other two parameters in a defined proportion. Claim 20
`
`recited that mutual dependence requires that changes in leaf temperature and root
`
`temperature are linearly proportional.2 Id. The Patent Owner argued that “‘mutual
`
`dependence’ must be construed to mean ‘wherein the change of one parameter
`
`necessarily requires/results in the change to at least one of the other parameters
`
`according to a defined proportion.’” Id., 345. The Patent Owner defined
`
`proportional as follows:
`
`[A]lthough the claim does not specify a precise ratio or formula, the
`recitation of “proportional” is meant to specify that the mutual changes must
`be pursuant to