PTAB

IPR2015-00039

Reflectix Inc v. Promethean Insulation Technology LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Metallized Polymeric Film Reflective Insulation Material
  • Brief Description: The ’410 patent is directed to a method for insulating an object, such as a building, using a multi-layer reflective insulation material that achieves a Class A fire rating. The material comprises a bubble-pack assembly bonded to a metallized polymeric film, which has a clear, anticorrosion lacquer protective coating on its outer surface.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 9, and 10 are obvious over Lindsay in view of Kurz.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lindsay (Patent 4,825,089) and Kurz (Patent 3,640,832).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lindsay discloses the core structure of the invention: a bubble-pack assembly bonded to a metallized polymeric film (specifically, an aluminized polyester film) for use as building insulation. However, Lindsay does not explicitly teach applying a protective coating, but it acknowledges that the metallized layer is known to oxidize over time, which reduces reflectivity. Kurz was argued to cure this deficiency by teaching the application of a clear, anti-oxidation varnish (i.e., a lacquer) to a metallized polymeric film to prevent corrosion while remaining permeable to radiant heat, thereby preserving high reflectivity.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), when confronted with the known oxidation problem identified in Lindsay, would have been motivated to look for known solutions. Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would combine the protective lacquer coating from Kurz with the insulation structure of Lindsay to solve Lindsay’s stated oxidation problem and improve the durability and long-term performance of the insulation product.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination of these familiar elements—a metallized insulation material and a protective coating—was argued to yield only predictable results. A POSITA would expect that applying Kurz's clear, protective coating to Lindsay's reflective surface would successfully prevent oxidation while maintaining high reflectivity, as both references teach.

Ground 2: Claims 1-5, 9, 10, and 14 are obvious over Kurz in view of Orologio ’873.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kurz (Patent 3,640,832) and Orologio ’873 (Patent 6,322,873).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Kurz teaches a metallized polymeric film with a clear, anti-corrosion protective lacquer coating, which is laminated to a heat-insulating backing like "foamed plastics material." While Kurz teaches the critical coated film, its backing is not a bubble-pack assembly. Orologio ’873, on the other hand, was presented as teaching that bubble-pack assemblies (made of plastics like polyethylene) are commonly used for insulation products and are known to be substitutable for other insulating backings.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references by substituting the "foamed plastics" backing of Kurz with the well-known bubble-pack assembly from Orologio ’873. The motivation was to create a superior insulation product by combining the benefits of Kurz’s protected, highly reflective surface with the enhanced insulative properties provided by the trapped gas pockets of Orologio’s bubble-pack structure. This was framed as a simple substitution of one known insulating element for another to achieve predictable improvements.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued there was a high expectation of success because both backing materials were known insulating elements. Replacing one with the other was a routine design choice that would predictably result in an insulation material having both a protected metallized film and a bubble-pack core.

Ground 3: Claims 1-5, 9, 10, and 14 are obvious over Sugiyama in view of Kurz.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sugiyama (Japanese Publication 2001-65784) and Kurz (Patent 3,640,832).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Sugiyama was argued to disclose a heat-insulating sheet comprising a bubble-pack assembly bonded to a metallized film with an "overcoat layer" to protect the metallized surface from oxidation. However, Petitioner contended that Sugiyama's disclosure suggests its overcoat is not a complete solution, as oxidation remains a concern. Kurz was argued to teach a superior, clear, anti-corrosion lacquer coating designed specifically to be applied immediately after metallization to prevent oxidation and maintain reflectivity.
    • Motivation to Combine: Recognizing the performance limitations of the overcoat in Sugiyama, a POSITA would have been motivated to replace it with the more effective and transparent anti-corrosion lacquer coating taught by Kurz. The goal would be to provide an improved and more transparent protective layer, thereby better achieving Sugiyama's own stated objective of inhibiting oxidation and maintaining long-term reflectivity.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would predictably expect that substituting one known protective coating (Sugiyama's) for another known, more effective protective coating (Kurz's) would result in improved performance, namely better corrosion resistance and sustained high reflectivity.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations including GB ‘206 (U.K. Patent Application No. GB 2376206) and Orologio ’873. These grounds relied on similar rationales, primarily substituting known insulating materials (e.g., Orologio’s bubble-pack films for Lindsay's) or applying a known lacquer coating (from GB ‘206) to solve a known oxidation problem (in Lindsay or Sugiyama).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • “Class A”: Petitioner proposed this term means an insulation material with a Flame Spread Index of 0-25 and a Smoke Developed Index of 0-450, as determined by the ASTM E-84-05 standard. This construction was central to arguing that achieving this known standard with known materials was obvious.
  • “metallized polymeric film”: Proposed to mean a polymeric film with metal particles deposited on it (e.g., via vapor deposition), as distinct from a solid metal foil. This distinction was critical to Petitioner's argument that the prior art already taught the benefits of using metallized films over foils.
  • “anticorrosion lacquer protective coating”: Petitioner argued this should be construed broadly to mean any liquid-based material that provides a protective, corrosion-inhibiting coating, consistent with generic terms like "lacquer" and "varnish" used in the art.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Recognition of Latent Properties is Not Inventive: A core theme of the petition was that the ’410 patent’s alleged invention was merely the recognition of an inherent, superior fire performance property (Class A rating) of a known structure (metallized film on a bubble-pack). Petitioner argued that even if this property was previously unknown, the mere discovery of a latent property in a product that was otherwise obvious from the prior art cannot make that product patentable. This argument was aimed at undermining the patent owner's position during prosecution, which relied on unexpected results related to fire performance.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-5, 9, 10, and 14 of the ’410 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.