PTAB

IPR2013-00179

ScentAir Technologies Inc v. Prolitec Inc

Key Events

Petition

petition Intelligence

Title: Diffusion Device with Replaceable Cartridge
Brief Description: The ’683 patent relates to a removable and replaceable cartridge for a liquid diffusion device. The technology centers on a cartridge that uses a venturi, a liquid-drawing conduit, and various chambers to atomize and disperse a liquid from an internal reservoir using a source of compressed gas.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Benalikhoudja (International Publication No. WO 2004/080604).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Benalikhoudja, a prior patent application from a founder of the Patent Owner, disclosed every limitation of the challenged claims. The petition emphasized that Benalikhoudja taught the very features added during prosecution to secure allowance of the ’683 patent, namely an "initial expansion chamber" and an "outlet including a second chamber" with a liquid return opening. Petitioner asserted that Benalikhoudja’s disclosure of an optional third opening in the venturi’s narrow end inherently taught an embodiment with only the two required openings. The argument contended that the patentee erroneously distinguished this reference during prosecution.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Benalikhoudja (International Publication No. WO 2004/080604) and Sakaida (Patent 7,131,603).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Benalikhoudja was asserted to teach the base diffusion device, including a reservoir, diffusion head, venturi, and conduit. Sakaida, directed to a “micro-mist generation method and apparatus,” was cited for its explicit teaching of a particle classifier designed to "prevent large particles from being discharged outside." Petitioner argued this classifier, which includes a collision plate and a "separated liquid return pipe," constituted the claimed "second chamber" with a "liquid return opening" that was used to distinguish prior art during prosecution.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Sakaida’s particle classifier with Benalikhoudja’s diffusion device to improve performance. Both references shared the objective of controlling particle size and preventing the escape of large droplets. Integrating Sakaida’s dedicated classifier was presented as a predictable way to enhance the particle recovery function already contemplated by Benalikhoudja.
- Expectation of Success: The combination involved integrating a known type of particle classification system into a standard nebulizer, which would have been a straightforward design modification with a high expectation of success.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Bjorklund (Patent 3,243,041).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Bjorklund, which describes a mist lubrication device for pneumatic installations, taught a cartridge containing every element of claim 1. Bjorklund disclosed a venturi for creating mist, a conduit for drawing oil, and an initial expansion chamber. Critically, Bjorklund taught a "shield dividing said container into a first and a second chamber" where "larger droplets are separated during passage past the shield." This structure was argued to directly map onto the claimed "second chamber" with a "liquid return opening."
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional challenges, including that claims 1-2 are obvious over Benalikhoudja in view of Howe (Patent 5,063,021); claim 2 is obvious over Bjorklund in view of Kizer (Patent 6,167,318); claims 1-2 are anticipated by Accaries (European Patent Application No. 0608176); claim 1 is anticipated by Moy (Patent 6,328,233); claim 2 is obvious over Moy in view of Accaries; and claims 1-2 are obvious over Sakaida in view of Bagwell (Patent 5,396,884).

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1 and 2 of the ’683 patent as unpatentable.