PTAB

IPR2014-01235

Nestle USA Inc v. Steuben Foods Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus for Aseptic Packaging
  • Brief Description: The ’013 patent discloses a method for the high-output, aseptic bottling of food products. The invention centers on disinfecting bottles with a hot, atomized sterilant (e.g., hydrogen peroxide spray) and subsequently drying them with hot, sterile air to achieve commercial sterility at high processing speeds.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 18-20 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 or, alternatively, obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Buchner.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Buchner (a 1988 article titled Aseptic Production and Filling Methods in the Pharmaceutical and Foodstuff Industries).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Buchner, which describes an aseptic bottling plant by Robert Bosch GmbH, discloses every limitation of claims 18-20. Buchner teaches sterilizing preheated bottles with hydrogen peroxide at 50-70°C, filling them with UHT-treated foodstuffs, and achieving residual peroxide levels below 0.5 PPM. Petitioner contended Buchner’s disclosure of using UHT-treated foodstuffs inherently meets the 12-log reduction in C. botulinum required by claim 18. For claim 19, Petitioner asserted Buchner’s validated reduction of over 5.5 logs in highly resistant B. subtilis spores necessarily achieves the claimed 6-log reduction in other, less resistant spore organisms. Buchner also explicitly discloses plans to increase output to 100 bottles per minute and anticipates future increases to 200 bottles per minute.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 alternative): To the extent the "greater than 100 bottles per minute" rate was not considered fully enabled for anticipation, Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to achieve it. A POSITA would be motivated to implement Buchner's own suggestions for increasing output, such as widening the sterilizer from 6 to 9 lines or using smaller containers, to achieve rates beyond 100 bottles per minute.
    • Expectation of Success: Because Buchner provides specific instructions on how to increase output rates, a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in making these simple modifications.

Ground 2: Claims 18-20 are anticipated under §102 or, alternatively, obvious under §103 over ZFL.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: ZFL (a 1989 article in ZFL Magazine titled Aseptic Filling of Glass and Plastic Containers).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued ZFL, which describes the 100-bottle-per-minute Bosch plant referenced as the "next step" in Buchner, also anticipates all limitations. ZFL discloses sterilization with vaporized hydrogen peroxide, achieving residual levels under 0.5 PPM, and filling with UHT-treated foodstuffs (inherently meeting claim 18's 12-log reduction). ZFL explicitly teaches achieving a greater than 8-log reduction in B. cereus spores, satisfying claim 19's "at least a 6 log reduction" requirement. For the high-output limitation, ZFL discloses plants with an output of 100/min and a "dual-line design" in development to achieve 200 bottles per minute.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 alternative): If the higher rate was not anticipated, Petitioner argued it would be obvious to implement ZFL’s disclosed "dual-line design." A POSITA seeking higher throughput would be motivated by this express teaching to run two identical 100-bottle-per-minute lines in parallel to achieve a 200-bottle-per-minute rate.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a clear expectation of success in doubling the output by doubling the number of processing lines, as this is a predictable engineering principle.

Ground 3: Claims 18-20 are obvious over Buchner or ZFL in view of Bosch Brochure, Biewendt, Chambers, and/or FDA regulations.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Buchner or ZFL, in combination with one or more of Bosch Brochure (a 1990 Bosch company publication), Biewendt (a 1996 report on Bosch plant testing), Chambers (a 1993 textbook on aseptic processing), and 21 C.F.R. § 178.1005.

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that if any element was deemed missing from Buchner or ZFL alone, it was supplied by the secondary references. The Bosch Brochure confirms that rates of 100-200 bottles per minute were actually achieved by commercial Bosch systems with 6 to 30 lines. Chambers teaches that UHT sterilization for low-acid foods was known and required to achieve a 12-log reduction in C. botulinum spores, confirming this was a standard industry requirement. Biewendt provides further operational details of the Bosch plant, including the use of a "minimum 33% H₂O₂" sterilant concentration.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these references because they all describe different aspects of the same underlying, commercially available Bosch aseptic bottling technology. A POSITA studying Buchner or ZFL would naturally look to other Bosch publications like the Bosch Brochure or technical reports like Biewendt for implementation details. Furthermore, compliance with mandatory FDA regulations (21 C.F.R. § 178.1005), which limited hydrogen peroxide concentration to 35%, would provide a compelling motivation to use concentrations taught in the art that met this rule.
    • Expectation of Success: Since the references describe variations of the same commercial method, a POSITA would have a very high expectation of success when combining their teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge based on Biewendt as the primary reference, combined with the Bosch Brochure, Buchner, ZFL, and Chambers.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the grounds presented in this petition were not duplicative of those in a co-pending IPR (IPR2014-00041). Petitioner asserted that its primary reliance on Buchner (Ground 1) and Biewendt (Ground 4), as well as its specific combination theories (Ground 3), presented new arguments and evidence that were not previously considered by the Board in the other proceeding and therefore warranted separate consideration.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 18-20 of Patent 6,945,013 as unpatentable.