`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`PELICAN BIOTHERMAL, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VA-Q-TEC AG.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Patent No. 10,766,685
`Issue Date: September 8, 2020
`Title: BOX-TYPE TRANSPORT CONTAINER
`_______________
`
`Post-Grant Review No. PGR2021-00085
`____________________________________________________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 321-329 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.200 ET. SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1 
`NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL .......................................... 1 
`NOTICE OF EACH REAL-PARTY-IN-INTEREST ..................................... 1 
`NOTICE OF RELATED MATTERS ............................................................. 1 
`NOTICE OF SERVICE INFORMATION ...................................................... 1 
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 1 
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................... 2 
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW ................ 3 
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ........................ 3 
`INTRODUCTION TO THE ’685 PATENT (EX1001) .................................. 3 
`A.  Overview ............................................................................................... 3 
`B. 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 5 
`THE PRIOR ART AND LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ........................... 8 
`A. 
`Level of Skill in the Art ......................................................................... 9 
`B. 
`NanoCool Prior-Art Products ................................................................ 9 
`1. 
`Offers to Sell and Sales of the NanoCool Products .................. 16 
`Printed Publications ............................................................................. 20 
`1. 
`Smith (EX1011) ........................................................................ 20 
`2.  Wood (EX1013) ........................................................................ 22 
`3. 
`Goncharko (EX1012) ................................................................ 26 
`4. 
`Combs (EX1014) ...................................................................... 27 
`5. 
`Frysinger (EX1018) .................................................................. 28 
`
`C. 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685
`
`
`2. 
`
`Johnston (EX1023) ................................................................... 29 
`6. 
`III.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 30 
`A. 
`Preambles ............................................................................................ 31 
`1. 
`Box-type Transport Container”................................................. 31 
`2. 
`“A Coherent Frame-type Insert…” ........................................... 32 
`B.  Means-Plus-Function Claim Terms .................................................... 32 
`1. 
`“Tensioning Means” (Claims 1-2, 14, 19-22, 27, 36-38,
`43-44, 46-47) ............................................................................. 33 
`“Corner Protection Elements” (Claims 1, 9, 19, 22, 28,
`44, 48) ....................................................................................... 35 
`“Sealing Means” (Claims 12, 38) ............................................. 37 
`3. 
`IV.  CLAIM-BY-CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY .................................................................................. 38 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 2, 20-23, and 43-45 Are Invalid for
`Indefiniteness under § 112. ................................................................. 38 
`Ground 2: The NanoCool Products Anticipate Claims 1-2, 4, 7-
`12, 14, 19-28, 36-38, and 43-48 .......................................................... 42 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 42 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 51 
`3. 
`Dependent Claim 4 ................................................................... 52 
`4. 
`Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................... 52 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 8 ................................................................... 54 
`6. 
`Dependent Claim 9 ................................................................... 55 
`7. 
`Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................. 56 
`8. 
`Dependent Claim 11 ................................................................. 57 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685
`
`
`Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................. 58 
`9. 
`10.  Dependent Claim 14 ................................................................. 59 
`11. 
`Independent Claim 19 ............................................................... 59 
`12.  Dependent Claim 20 ................................................................. 60 
`13.  Dependent Claim 21 ................................................................. 61 
`14.  Dependent Claim 22 ................................................................. 62 
`15.  Dependent Claim 23 ................................................................. 62 
`16.  Dependent Claim 24 ................................................................. 62 
`17.  Dependent Claim 25 ................................................................. 63 
`18.  Dependent Claim 26 ................................................................. 63 
`19.  Dependent Claim 27 ................................................................. 64 
`20.  Dependent Claim 28 ................................................................. 64 
`21. 
`Independent Claim 36 ............................................................... 64 
`22. 
`Independent Claim 37 ............................................................... 64 
`23. 
`Independent Claim 38 ............................................................... 65 
`24. 
`Independent Claim 43 ............................................................... 65 
`25.  Dependent Claim 44 ................................................................. 65 
`26.  Dependent Claim 45 ................................................................. 66 
`27. 
`Independent Claim 46 ............................................................... 66 
`28.  Dependent Claim 47 ................................................................. 66 
`29.  Dependent Claim 48 ................................................................. 67 
`Ground 3: Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 14, 19-20, and 24-25 are
`Unpatentable: Smith in View of Either: Wood or
`Goncharko/Combs ............................................................................... 67 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685
`
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 67 
`1. 
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 80 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 4 ................................................................... 82 
`3. 
`Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................... 83 
`4. 
`Dependent Claim 8 ................................................................... 84 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 14 ................................................................. 84 
`6. 
`Independent Claim 19 ............................................................... 85 
`7. 
`Dependent Claim 20 ................................................................. 87 
`8. 
`Dependent Claim 24 ................................................................. 87 
`9. 
`10.  Dependent Claim 25 ................................................................. 87 
`D.  Ground 4: Claims 12 and 38 are Unpatentable: Smith in View
`of Either: Wood, or Goncharko/Combs (Per Ground 3), and
`Further in View of Frysinger ............................................................... 88 
`1. 
`Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................. 88 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 38 ................................................................. 90 
`Ground 5: Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 14, 19-20, and 24-25 are
`Unpatentable: Goncharko in View of Either: Wood or Combs .......... 90 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 90 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 97 
`3. 
`Dependent Claim 4 ................................................................... 98 
`4. 
`Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................... 99 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 8 .................................................................100 
`6. 
`Dependent Claim 14 ...............................................................100 
`7. 
`Independent Claim 19 .............................................................101 
`
`E. 
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685
`
`
`F. 
`
`Dependent Claim 20 ...............................................................102 
`8. 
`Dependent Claim 24 ...............................................................103 
`9. 
`10.  Dependent Claim 25 ...............................................................103 
`Ground 6: Claims 10, 26-27, 36, and 46-47 are Unpatentable:
`Goncharko in View of Either: Wood or Combs (per Ground 5),
`and Further in View of Sawaki .........................................................104 
`1. 
`Dependent Claims 10 and 26 ..................................................104 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 27 ...............................................................106 
`3. 
`Independent Claim 36 .............................................................106 
`4. 
`Independent Claim 46 .............................................................107 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 47 ...............................................................107 
`G.  Ground 7: Claims 12 and 38 are Unpatentable: Goncharko in
`View of Either: Wood or Combs (per Ground 5), and Further in
`View of Frysinger ..............................................................................108 
`1. 
`Dependent Claim 12 ...............................................................108 
`2. 
`Independent Claim 38 .............................................................109 
`THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED UNDER § 325(D) ...........110 
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................111 
`FEE PAYMENT ..........................................................................................112 
`
`
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH,
`Case IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) ........................ 110
`Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Empak, Inc.,
`268 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 36
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (Dec. 15, 2017)......................................................... 110
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 41
`Callicrate v. Wadsworth Mfg., Inc.,
`427 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 33
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 32
`Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. Tritech Microelectronics Int'l, Inc.,
`246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 19
`Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus.,
`807 F.2d 955 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .............................................................................. 9
`In re Fout,
`675 F.2d 297 (CCPA 1982) .......................................................................... 74, 96
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ........................................................................ 9, 14
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................ 38, 39, 40, 41
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................ 73, 74, 96
`MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp.,
`420 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 16
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685
`
`Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA,
`851 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 40
`In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
`800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ........................................................ 77, 80, 96, 97
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ............................................................................................ 38
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 31
`One-E-Way, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`859 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 39
`Oticon Medical AB v. Cochlear Ltd.,
`IPR2019-00975, Paper 15 (Oct. 16, 2019) ....................................................... 110
`Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.,
`525 U.S. 55 (1998) .............................................................................................. 19
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 30
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .................................................................... 31, 32
`Rowe v. Dror,
`112 F.3d 473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ...................................................................... 31, 32
`In re Sernaker,
`702 F.2d 989 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ...................................................................... 77, 96
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)(en banc) ............................................... 33, 35, 37
`Zeroclick v. Apple Inc.,
`891 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 33
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................. 2, 17, 18, 19, 42
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................. 2, 3, 67, 72, 88, 90, 104, 108
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................... 2, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 48, 50
`35 U.S.C. § 321(b) ..................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ..................................................................................................... 3
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b) .............................................................................................. 111
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 35
`37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) .............................................................................................. 31
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685
`
`
`
`Ex #
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685 (“the ’685 patent”)
`
`1002 Declaration of Paul Harber
`
`1003 Preliminary Amendment from ’685 Patent Prosecution History
`
`1004 Office Action dated June 13, 2019, from ’685 Patent Prosecution History
`
`1005 Amendment dated Sept. 12, 2019, from ’685 Patent Prosecution History
`
`1006 Office Action dated Dec. 27, 2019, from ’685 Patent Prosecution History
`
`1007 Amendment dated March 23, 2020, from ’685 Patent Prosecution History
`
`1008 Notice of Allowance from ’685 Patent Prosecution History
`
`1009 Amendment after Allowance dated May 13, 2020
`
`1010 Curriculum Vitae of Paul Harber
`
`1011 U.S. Patent No. 6,701,724 (“Smith”)
`
`1012 U.S. Application Publication No. 2008/0006628 A1 (“Goncharko”)
`
`1013 PCT Publication No. WO 2013/144621 (“Wood”)
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685
`
`
`1014 U.S. Patent No. 4,576,017 (“Combs”)
`
`1015 U.S. Patent No. 3,199,709 (“Morrison”)
`
`1016 U.S. Patent No. 8,348,087 (“Sawaki”)
`
`1017 U.S. Patent No. 7,383,592 (“Kruelle”)
`
`1018 U.S. Patent No. 6,244,458 (“Frysinger”)
`
`1019 Signode 1996 Catalog
`
`1020 ACME 1995 Catalog
`
`1021
`
`Intentionally left blank
`
`1022 U.S. Application Publication No. 2010/0326993 (“Mayer”)
`
`1023 U.S. Patent No. 5,323,911 (“Johnston”)
`
`1024 U.S. Application Publication No. 2014/0054297 (“Patstone”)
`
`1025 PCT Publication No. WO 2013/002325 (“Fujii”)
`
`1026 PCT Publication No. WO 2008/137889 A1
`
`1027 PCT Publication No. WO 2008/137883 A1
`
`1028 PCT Publication No. WO 2004/104498 A2
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685
`
`
`1029 European Patent Publication No. EP 2 221 569 A1
`
`1030 Declaration of Mr. Charles Zumwalt
`
`1031 Declaration of Ms. Amy Martinez
`
`1032 MSI Packaging 853 Change Letter 12-29-2010
`
`1033 World Courier 985 Change Letter 01-06-2011
`
`1034 World Courier 854 Change Letter 01-06-2011
`
`1035 Cool Logistics 98601 Change Letter 01-10-2011
`
`1036 Aeras Pricing Proposal dated 01-11-2013
`
`1037 Cool Logistics Pricing Proposal 12-19-2012
`
`1038
`
`Johnson and Johnson Pricing Proposal 12-14-2012
`
`1039 Documents re Product Sales to Aeras Jan 2013
`
`1040 Documents re Product Sales to FedEx Feb 2013
`
`1041 Documents re Product Sales to Healthpoint June 2013
`
`1042 Documents re Product Sales to FedEx June 2013
`
`1043 Documents re Product Sales to FedEx Oct 2013
`
`
`
`xii
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685
`
`
`1044 Documents re Product Sales to Smith and Nephew Dec 2013
`
`1045 Documents re Product Sales to MSI Packaging Mar 2014
`
`1046 Appendix 1 to the Declaration of Paul Harber (Claim charts based on
`NanoCool Products)
`
`1047 Appendix 2 to the Declaration of Paul Harber (Claim charts based on
`Smith)
`
`1048 Appendix 3 to the Declaration of Paul Harber (Claim charts based on
`Goncharko)
`
`
`
`
`
`xiii
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685
`
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES
`NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL
`Lead Counsel: Michael Houston (Reg. No. 58,486) Tel: 312-832-4378
`
`Backup Counsel: Ted R. Rittmaster (Reg. No. 32,933) Tel: 213-972-4594
`
`Address: Foley & Lardner LLP, 3000 K St. NW, Suite 600,
`
`Washington, DC 20008 FAX: 608.257.5035
`
`NOTICE OF EACH REAL-PARTY-IN-INTEREST
`The real-party-in-interest is the Petitioner, Pelican BioThermal, LLC
`
`(“Pelican”).
`
`NOTICE OF RELATED MATTERS
`There are no related matters known to Petitioner.
`
`NOTICE OF SERVICE INFORMATION
`Please address all correspondence to the lead counsel at the address above.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service at: mhouston@foley.com; and
`
`trittmaster@foley.com.
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the ’685 Patent is available for post-grant
`
`review and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting a post-
`
`grant review challenging the patent claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685
`
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 321(b), Petitioner respectfully requests that the
`
`Board initiate a post-grant review and cancel Claims 1-2, 4, 7-12, 14, 19-28, 36-38,
`
`and 43-48 of the ’685 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and/or
`
`112, per the specific grounds of unpatentability presented herein:
`
`1. Claims 2, 20-23, and 43-45 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112;
`
`2. Claims 1-2, 4, 7-12, 14, 19-28, 36-38, and 43-48 are anticipated under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 by the NanoCool Products;
`
`3. Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 12, 14, 19-20, 24-27, 36, 38, and 46-47 are
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
`
`a. Claims 1,-2, 4, 7-8, 14, 19-20, and 24-25 are obvious over
`
`Smith in view of Wood, or Smith in view of Goncharko and
`
`Combs;
`
`b. Claims 12 and 38 are obvious over Smith in view of Wood and
`
`Frysinger, or Smith in view of Goncharko and Combs, and
`
`further in view of view Frysinger;
`
`c. Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 14, 19-20, and 24-25 are obvious over
`
`Goncharko in view of Wood, or Goncharko in view of Combs;
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685
`
`
`d. Claims 10, 26-27, 36, and 46-47 are obvious over Goncharko in
`
`view of Wood and Sawaki, or Goncharko in view of Combs
`
`and Sawaki; and
`
`e. Claims 12 and 38 are obvious over Goncharko in view of Wood
`
`and Frysinger, or Goncharko in view of Combs and Frysinger.
`
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`A petition for post-grant review must demonstrate that “it is more likely than
`
`not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35
`
`U.S.C. § 324(a). The Petition meets this threshold. Each of the elements of
`
`Claims 1-2, 4, 7-12, 14, 19-28, 36-38, and 43-48 of the ’685 patent are taught in
`
`the prior art, as explained herein. Also, the reasons to combine relevant prior art
`
`are established for each ground proposed under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`INTRODUCTION TO THE ’685 PATENT (EX1001)
`A. Overview
`The ’685 patent issued from U.S. Patent App. No. 15/521,338, based on a
`
`PCT application filed on October 20, 2015, with a claim of priority to DE 2020
`
`14008489, filed October 27, 2014, the earliest possible effective date (“EPED”).
`
`EX1001, Cover.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685
`
`
`The ’685 patent describes a “box-type transport container” and a “coherent
`
`frame-type insert” created by clamping vacuum insulation panels 5 (“VIPs”)
`
`together by at least one tensioning means. EX1001, 4:15-20. The VIPs 5 are
`
`arranged in a corrugated paperboard outer container 1. Id., 1:14-17, 10:53-55.
`
`“For all variants,” the VIPs are “fixed … relative to one another by means of at
`
`least one encircling tensioning strap 10…,” and “can thus be handled as a coherent
`
`frame-type insert 11 for the outer container 1.” Id., 8:14-21. Also, “the corners of
`
`the vacuum insulation panels placed together in the coherent frame-type insert are
`
`protected by means of corner protection elements [12], e.g., angled rails made of
`
`paperboard or plastic (metal is also possible…”). Id., 4:32-36, 8:54-58.
`
`The “Background” section admits that insulated box-type transport
`
`containers and VIPs were previously known for transporting temperature sensitive
`
`goods. The ’685 patent further acknowledges that known box-type transport
`
`containers had VIPs of prismatic design with smooth edges arranged in a box-type
`
`outer container, citing prior art references: WO 2008/0137889 A1 (EX1026), WO
`
`2008/0137883 A1 (EX1027), WO 2004/104498 A2 (EX1028), and EP 2 221 569
`
`A1 (EX1029). EX1001, 1:23-2:26.
`
`Accordingly, some claims of the ’685 patent focus on VIPs being fixed to
`
`one another by at least one tensioning means. Some claims also include “corner
`
`protection elements” disposed between the VIPs and the at least one tensioning
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685
`
`means. Other claims also include a supporting frame disposed inside the VIPs
`
`providing an abutment for forces applied by the at least one tensioning means.
`
`However, transport containers and container inserts having these features
`
`were both described in the prior art and marketed and sold in the U.S. well before
`
`the EPED of the ’685 patent. Indeed, multiple prior art publications and on-sale
`
`evidence disclosed transport containers having VIPs strapped in a coherent frame,
`
`and the need for (and use of) corner protection elements between the straps and the
`
`VIPs—see the discussion of the NanoCool Products, Goncharko and Wood, herein.
`
`In view of these references and other evidence described herein, the allowance of
`
`the claims of the ’685 patent was therefore in error.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The application for the ’685 patent was filed with claims 1-27 from
`
`PCT/EP2015/002068. A preliminary amendment cancelled those claims and
`
`added new application claims 28-57.
`
`New independent claim 28 was identical to issued patent Claim 1, except it
`
`did not include “corner protection elements” limitations that were later added to
`
`that claim by an Amendment dated March 23, 2020. EX1007 at 2. New
`
`independent claims 46 and 47 corresponded to patent Claims 18 and 19. However,
`
`claim 47 was subsequently amended (on March 23, 2020) to add “corner protection
`
`elements” limitations, in response to rejections over prior art. EX1007 at 6.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685
`
`
`In the first Office Action dated June 13, 2019 (EX1004), all pending claims
`
`28-57 were rejected as obvious over certain combinations of Mayer (EX1022),
`
`Johnston (EX1023), Patstone (EX1024), and Fujii (EX1025). The Examiner stated
`
`that Johnston discloses corner protection elements 50 between the VIPS and
`
`tensioning means that extend to the bottom VIP to jointly clamp the bottom VIP
`
`with sidewall VIPs, citing Johnston’s Fig. 1, below. See EX1004 at 4-6 (¶¶10-17).
`
`
`
`In a response dated September 12, 2019, applicant argued that Johnston
`
`relates to a storage container on a palletized base and that Johnston’s tensioning
`
`means (straps 16) extend around an outermost container, not a frame-type insert for
`
`an outer container. EX1005 at 11-12.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685
`
`
`A second Office Action dated December 27, 2019 (EX1006) included new
`
`rejections of many of the pending claims (including claims 28 and 47) as
`
`anticipated by Goncharko (EX1012) or as obvious over Goncharko and Fujii
`
`(EX1025). Other claims were objected to and claim 46 (patent claim 18) was
`
`allowed. In the rejections, the Examiner confirmed that Goncharko:
`
`discloses a coherent frame-type insert for a box-type
`outer container of an altogether box-type transport
`container, the insert comprising: board-like vacuum
`insulation panels 16/18/20/22 (Figure 2; paragraph 2) that
`have a prismatic design … fixed in position relative to
`one another by at least on tensioning means 14/15/17
`(Figure 3)….
`
`EX1006 at 4.
`
`Responding to those rejections, the applicant amended claim 28 (patent
`
`Claim 1) adding: “the transport container further comprising corner protection
`
`elements disposed between the vacuum insulation panels and the at least one
`
`tensioning means.” EX1007 at 2. That limitation had been in dependent claim 32
`
`(cancelled). Claim 47 (patent Claim 19) was amended to add similar corner
`
`protection element limitations from dependent claim 53 (cancelled). Id. at 6.
`
`Thereafter, a Notice of Allowance dated April 7, 2020, was issued. EX1008.
`
`The version of the NOA available on Public Pair does not provide any reasons for
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685
`
`allowance. Id. at 5-6. Nonetheless, the use of strapping and corner protection
`
`elements were well-known by POSITA and commonly used for VIP-insulated
`
`shipping containers, as taught by the prior art described herein. The allowance was
`
`in error in view of such prior art.
`
`After allowance, an Examiner interview was conducted, and an Amendment
`
`was filed (EX1009) to add these statements to the specification:
`
`“It will be recognized that as used within the present
`disclosure, an ‘edge’ may also be referred to as a ‘face.’”
`
`“It will be recognized that, as used within the present
`disclosure, a ‘corner protection element’ may also be
`referred to as an ‘edge protection element,’ and within
`this context a ‘corner’ may be referred to as an ‘edge.’”
`
`EX1009 at 31, 36; see EX1001, 2:2-4, 4:39-431.
`
`II. THE PRIOR ART AND LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`This Petition is supported by the Declaration of Mr. Paul Harber (EX1002),
`
`who has extensive experience working in the field of insulated shipping containers
`
`(“ISCs”). See id., ¶¶1-11.
`
`
`1 The specification appears to contain a typographical error. Compare EX1001,
`
`4:39-42 with EX1009 at 13, 36.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685
`
`
`A. Level of Skill in the Art
`According to Mr. Harber (id., ¶¶23-24), a POSITA in this field would have
`
`had a bachelor’s degree or higher degree in biological, chemical or mechanical
`
`engineering, or related sciences, and at least two to five years of experience in
`
`designing and testing ISCs depending on education level. A POSITA would have
`
`familiarity with VIPs for use in such systems to improve thermal insulating
`
`performance, as well as general techniques for creating containers from VIPs,
`
`banding them together using strapping or the like, and preparing such systems for
`
`shipping such as, for example, placing them into outer boxes for additional
`
`protection, application of labels and shipping instructions, etc. Id.
`
`In addition, as of the EPED, a POSITA would “be aware of all the pertinent
`
`prior art” at the time of the alleged invention. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-
`
`Allan Indus., 807 F.2d 955, 963 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The prior art cited herein further
`
`establish the POSITA’s level of skill and understanding of the art. See In re GPAC
`
`Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (noting that the level of ordinary skill can
`
`be evidenced by the prior art references themselves).
`
`B. NanoCool Prior-Art Products
`As supported by the declarations of Mr. Charles Zumwalt (EX1030) and Ms.
`
`Amy Martinez (EX1031), starting at least as early as 2011, NanoCool, LLC (a
`
`company Petitioner purchased in 2020) made, offered for sale, and sold products
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685
`
`that anticipate various claims of the ’685 patent. Generally, these NanoCool
`
`products are shipping containers having a set of VIPs that were situated to form at
`
`least the bottom and sides of a box banded together with plastic strapping, with
`
`corrugated cardboard protecting the corners and sides of the VIPs from the
`
`strapping. EX1030, ¶¶4-6. Two exemplary products, having product reference
`
`codes 98596 and 98830, are shown below:
`
`
`
`VIPs placed to form box-shape, then
`strapped together with cardboard
`corrugate protecting the VIPs
`
`VIP cover
`
`Cardboard
`corrugate
`protector
`
`
`
`Outer box
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`98596 Product (only
`VIP insert shown)
`
`
`98830 Product (VIP insert
`
`inside of outer box)
`
`
`
`Id., ¶¶7-8, 15-16. When strapped together, the cardboard-protected VIPs form a
`
`rigid insert that is then placed inside an outer box for further containment and
`
`protection during shipping, as seen above for the 98830 product and below for the
`
`98596 product:
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,766,685
`
`
`VIP insert
`(with cooling
`engine cover)
`
`
`
`Outer box for
`shipping
`
`
`
`
`
`98596 Product
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., ¶8. The 98596 product uses a “cooling engine” on top of the assembled VIPs
`
`(the silver foil above), while the 98830 product uses another VIP for the top cover
`
`instead of a cooling engine. Id., ¶¶9-10, 15-16.
`
`For the bottom of the VIP insert, the 98596 product uses two VIPs on either
`
`side of a PCM packet. Id., ¶10. The “upper” bottom VIP fits tightly inside the
`
`sidewall VIPs, while the “lower” bottom VIP matches the outer peripheral
`
`dimensions of the assembled sidewall VIPs, as seen below:
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition For Post-Grant Review of