PTAB

IPR2015-00045

Reflectix Inc v. Promethean Insulation Technology LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Metallized Polymeric Film Reflective Insulation Material
  • Brief Description: The ’614 patent is directed to a thermal insulation material comprising a metallized polymeric film, an anti-corrosion coating, and a bubble-pack assembly. The invention is purported to provide a reflective insulation product that meets the Class A fire rating standard, distinguishing itself from prior art that used metal foils.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lindsay, Kurz, and GB ’206 - Claims 1, 2, and 19-21 are obvious over Lindsay in view of Kurz or, alternatively, Lindsay in view of GB ’206.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lindsay (Patent 4,825,089), Kurz (Patent 3,640,832), and GB ’206 (U.K. Application No. GB 2376206).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lindsay discloses the core structure of the challenged claims: a reflective insulation material comprising a bubble-pack assembly with an outer metallized polymeric film (an aluminized layer on a polyester substrate). Critically, Lindsay explicitly recognized that this metallized layer "may oxidize in time," which reduces its reflectivity. Kurz and GB ’206 both teach solutions to this exact problem. Kurz discloses an anti-oxidation varnish, and GB ’206 discloses a thin lacquer coating, applied to reflective metal surfaces to prevent corrosion and maintain reflectivity. Petitioner contended that the terms "varnish" and "lacquer" are synonymous in this field.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, upon reading Lindsay's disclosure of a bubble-pack with a metallized layer and its acknowledged oxidation problem, would be motivated to find a solution. Kurz and GB ’206 provide a known solution (an anti-corrosion coating) to the known problem of corrosion on reflective metal surfaces. The combination would be a simple application of a known technique to a known product to obtain predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in applying the protective lacquer/varnish from Kurz or GB ’206 to Lindsay's metallized surface, as this would predictably prevent oxidation and preserve the surface's known reflective properties.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kurz and Orologio - Claims 15, 16, and 21 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 asserted that Kurz teaches a foil-free, Class A reflective insulation material with a metallized polymeric film and a clear anti-corrosion varnish coating. However, Kurz's backing material is a generic "heat-insulating backing" such as foamed plastic. Orologio, in contrast, specifically discloses bubble-pack assemblies as well-known and commonly used insulating elements. Dependent claims 15 and 16 require a bubble-pack assembly.
    • Motivation to Combine: The primary motivation was the "mere substitution of one element for another known in the field." A POSITA would combine the teachings by substituting Kurz's generic foam backing with Orologio’s well-known bubble-pack assembly. This substitution would be made to improve the overall insulative properties of the final product, as the air pockets in a bubble-pack provide effective insulation.
    • Expectation of Success: The substitution was argued to be a straightforward combination of known, substitutable insulating elements that would predictably result in an insulation material having the properties of both: the coated metallized film from Kurz and the bubble-pack structure from Orologio.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Sugiyama, Kurz, and GB ’206 - Claims 1, 2, and 19-21 are obvious over Sugiyama in view of Kurz or, alternatively, Sugiyama in view of GB ’206.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sugiyama (Japanese Publication 2001-65784), Kurz (Patent 3,640,832), and GB ’206 (U.K. Application No. GB 2376206).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Sugiyama discloses a reflective insulation material very similar to the ’614 patent, including a bubble-pack assembly bonded to a metallized polymeric film. Sugiyama also explicitly addresses the problem of oxidation on the metallized layer and includes a protective "overcoat layer" to inhibit it. Petitioner argued that even if Sugiyama's "overcoat" is not a "lacquer coating," it would have been obvious to improve upon it.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, recognizing Sugiyama's goal of preventing oxidation with an overcoat, would be motivated to substitute Sugiyama's generic overcoat with the specific and improved anti-corrosion lacquer/varnish coatings taught by Kurz or GB ’206. This substitution would provide an improved, more transparent protective layer to better achieve the stated goal of retaining reflectivity, yielding only predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect that replacing one protective coating (Sugiyama's overcoat) with another known, superior protective coating (the lacquer/varnish from Kurz or GB ’206) would successfully and predictably enhance the anti-corrosion and reflective properties of the final product.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on three-way combinations including Orologio (’873 patent) to teach the use of fire-retardant additives for certain dependencies of claim 21.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Class A": Petitioner proposed this term means the material has a Flame Spread Index of 0-25 and a Smoke Developed Index of 0-450, as determined by the ASTM E-84-05 test. This construction is critical for mapping prior art that was known to be used in commercial buildings where such standards are required.
  • "metallized polymeric film": Construed as a polymeric film with metal particles deposited thereon (e.g., via vapor deposition), as distinct from a solid metal foil product. This distinction is central to the argument that prior art teaching metallized films is highly relevant and that the claimed invention’s "foil-free" limitation is met by such art.
  • "anticorrosion lacquer coating": Construed broadly to mean any liquid-based material providing a protective coating, including materials described as "varnish." This construction allows Petitioner to equate the "lacquer" of the claims with the "varnish" taught in the Kurz reference.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, 14-16, and 19-21 of the ’614 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.