PTAB

IPR2015-00289

R R Street & Co Inc v. ChemisChe Fabrik KreuSSLer & Co GmbH

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Dry Cleaning Method
  • Brief Description: The ’807 patent discloses methods for dry cleaning textiles by bringing them into contact with a cleaning agent that comprises an acetal solvent. The claimed acetal solvent has a specific general formula, R⁴OCH₂OR², where R⁴ and R² are selected from C₂ through C₈ alkyl residues.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by the ’773 Reference - Claims 1, 2, 4-5, 10-11, and 13-15 are anticipated by the ’773 Reference under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: French Patent Publication No. 2,268,773 (“’773 Reference”).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the ’773 Reference, published in 1975, expressly teaches every element of the challenged claims. The reference discloses using acetals, including ethylal, propylal, and specifically butylal, to “dry clean textiles.” Butylal (dibutoxymethane) is an acetal that falls squarely within the general formula of claim 1 of the ’807 patent, where R¹ and R² are C₄-n-alkyl residues. The reference teaches that these acetals are used as stabilizers for chlorinated hydrocarbons in dry cleaning solutions. It also discloses that the boiling point of the acetal should be roughly the same as the hydrocarbon being stabilized, meeting the boiling point limitation of claim 13. Furthermore, the inherent flash point of n-butylal (62° C) anticipates the limitations of claims 5 and 12. The reference’s disclosure of using these acetals with other “known stabilizers” anticipates the “corrosion inhibitors” of claim 10 and its teaching of a distillation process inherently discloses the recycling limitation of claim 15.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Lambiotte and the [’793](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2015-00289/doc/1007) patent - Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, and 10-14 are obvious over Lambiotte in view of the [’793](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2015-00289/doc/1007) patent.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lambiotte & Cie S.A. n-Butylal technical data sheet (“Lambiotte”) and Patent 7,632,793 (“’793 patent”).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Lambiotte, a commercial data sheet available before 2008, describes simple acetals like ethylal, n-propylal, and n-butylal as providing “extraordinary benefits for cleaning,” including good degreasing properties and compatibility with organic solvents and surfactants. This teaches the core cleaning method of claim 1. The ’793 patent teaches that a different class of more complex acetals are useful as solvents in various cleaning compositions, including “stain-sprays for textiles” and formulations that boost cleaning performance.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA), aware of the need for effective cleaning solvents for textiles, would combine the teachings of these references. Seeing that the complex acetals in the ’793 patent were effective for cleaning textiles, a POSITA would be motivated to substitute them with the simpler, well-known, and commercially available acetals from Lambiotte (like n-butylal), which were explicitly promoted for their superior cleaning properties. This would be a simple substitution of one known cleaning agent for another to achieve a predictable result.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references teach using acetals as cleaning agents for similar applications. Lambiotte’s disclosure of n-butylal’s compatibility with organic solvents and surfactants would confirm its suitability for use in the broader cleaning formulations described in the ’793 patent.

Ground 3: Obviousness over the [’432](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2015-00289/doc/1008) patent and the [’596](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2015-00289/doc/1009) patent - Claims 1, 3, 5-11, and 14-15 are obvious over the [’432](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2015-00289/doc/1008) patent in view of the [’596](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2015-00289/doc/1009) patent.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Patent 6,558,432 (“’432 patent”) and Patent 2,787,596 (“’596 patent”).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the ’432 patent teaches a dry-cleaning system that can use various organic solvents, including ethers. The patent provides a general chemical formula that explicitly describes butylal as a potential solvent. The ’432 patent further teaches that the cleaning capability of its system can be enhanced by adding co-solvents, water, and detergents. The ’596 patent, from 1957, is directed to cleaning agents for dry cleaning and teaches the use of surfactants ("anionic surface active agents") and alkali metal salts, such as sodium carbonate, as a "dry cleaning aid."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to improve the performance of the dry-cleaning system disclosed in the ’432 patent would be motivated to look to other known methods for enhancing cleaning. The ’596 patent provides a well-established solution by teaching the addition of surfactants and alkali metal carbonates to dry cleaning compositions. A POSITA would combine the teachings to add the cleaning boosters from the ’596 patent to the butylal-based solvent system of the ’432 patent to enhance its cleaning capability, a known technique for a predictable outcome.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success because the ’432 patent already suggests adding detergents and other additives to its solvent system. The ’596 patent provides specific, time-tested examples of such additives used for the exact same purpose (as a "dry cleaning aid"), ensuring their compatibility and effectiveness.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional anticipation and obviousness challenges, including grounds based on the Lambiotte reference alone and the ’432 patent alone, which relied on similar arguments that these references taught the use of butylal and other acetals as effective cleaning solvents for textiles.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-15 of Patent 8,801,807 as unpatentable.