PTAB

IPR2015-00042

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 ’411 patent is directed to a multi-layer reflective insulation material. The invention describes an assembly comprising a bubble-pack insulation core provided with an outer reflective metallized polymeric film that has a clear, anti-corrosion lacquer coating to protect its reflective surface.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lindsay in view of Kurz - Claims 1-2, 7, 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 disclosed a reflective insulation material comprising a bubble-pack assembly with an exposed outer metallized polymeric film. Critically, Lindsay acknowledged that this aluminized layer was known to "oxidize in time," which would reduce its reflective properties. Kurz taught a solution to this problem, disclosing a reflective insulation material with a metallized film protected by a clear anti-oxidation varnish coating ("lacquer") that is "permeable to radiant heat."
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), upon reading Lindsay's disclosure of the oxidation problem, would have been motivated to consult the art for a solution. Kurz directly addressed this known problem by teaching the application of a clear protective coating to a metallized surface to prevent oxidation while retaining reflectivity. The combination would solve the problem identified in the primary reference using a known solution from the art.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as applying a known protective coating to a known metallized surface to prevent known degradation is a simple combination of familiar elements that would yield predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kurz in view of Orologio - Claims 1-2, 7-8, and 10 are obvious over Kurz in view of Orologio.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kurz (Patent 3,640,832) and Orologio (Patent 6,322,873).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Kurz taught a reflective insulation product with a metallized polymeric film (including the claimed clear, anti-corrosion lacquer coating) laminated to a generic "heat-insulating backing," such as "foamed plastics material." To the extent this backing was not a bubble-pack assembly, Orologio taught that bubble-pack assemblies were well-known and commonly used as insulation materials. Orologio specifically disclosed bubble-packs made of polyethylene for use in insulation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references by substituting the generic heat-insulating backing of Kurz with the well-known bubble-pack assembly taught by Orologio. This modification would be a simple substitution of one known insulating element for another to obtain the predictable result of effective insulation. The motivation would be to use a common, effective, and commercially known insulating core in Kurz's product.
    • Expectation of Success: The substitution would have been straightforward and routine for a POSITA, yielding the predictable benefits of a bubble-pack structure with no technical hurdles.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Sugiyama in view of Kurz - Claims 1-2, 7-8, and 10 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: Petitioner argued that Sugiyama disclosed a heat-insulating sheet comprising a bubble-pack assembly with a metallized polymeric film bonded to it as an exposed outer surface. Sugiyama also taught that a protective "overcoat layer" is frequently disposed on the metallized surface to protect it. Kurz, as previously noted, taught a specific type of clear, anti-corrosion coating (a varnish or lacquer) for the same purpose.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, reading Sugiyama's disclosure of using a generic "overcoat" to protect the metal layer, would be motivated to implement a more effective and transparent protective coating. A POSITA would combine Sugiyama with Kurz by substituting Sugiyama's generic overcoat with the specific, clear, anti-corrosion lacquer taught by Kurz to provide an improved, more transparent protective coating that better maintains long-term reflectivity.
    • Expectation of Success: Applying a well-known type of protective coating (lacquer) in place of another (overcoat) was a routine technique with a high expectation of achieving the predictable result of enhanced corrosion protection.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations based on Lindsay in view of GB ‘206 and using Orologio to supply limitations for dependent claim 8, which relied on similar prior art teachings and motivations.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Class A": Petitioner proposed this term be construed to mean an insulation material having a Flame Spread Index of 0 to 25 and a Smoke Developed Index of 0 to 450, as determined by the ASTM E-84-05 standard. This construction was central to arguments that the prior art would inherently meet or be obviously modified to meet the preamble limitations.
  • "metallized polymeric film": This term was construed as a polymeric film having metal particles deposited thereon, distinguishing it from a solid "metal foil" product. This distinction was a key point of argument during the patent's original prosecution history.
  • "anticorrosion lacquer coating": Petitioner argued this term should be understood broadly to refer to any liquid-based material that provides a clear protective coating to prevent corrosion, consistent with its generic use in the ’411 patent.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-2, 7-8, and 10 of the ’411 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.