Atlanta Gas Light Co v. Bennett Regulator Guards Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2015-00826
• Patent #: 5,810,029
• Filed: February 27, 2015
• Petitioner(s): Atlanta Gas Light Company
• Patent Owner(s): Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-8

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Anti-Icing Device for Gas Pressure Regulators
• Brief Description: The ’029 patent relates to a skirt assembly designed to prevent ice formation on the outlet vent tube of an outdoor, diaphragm-type gas pressure regulator. The device aims to inhibit ice buildup that could otherwise block the vent and cause the regulator to malfunction.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1 and 5 - Claims 1 and 5 are anticipated by the ’087 patent under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: ’087 patent (Patent 2,620,087).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the ’087 patent, which discloses a "Weatherproof Breather and Relief Vent for Gas Regulators," teaches every element of independent claims 1 and 5. The ’087 patent allegedly discloses a skirt assembly for reducing ice formation, comprising a skirt receiver (element 18) connected to a vent tube, a skirt member (dome portion 22 and skirt portion 23) defining an interior space with an outwardly flared lower end, and a baffle means (rigid disk 30) located in the interior space and spaced from the skirt walls to permit gas flow. For claim 5, the ’087 patent also shows a conventional diaphragm-type gas pressure regulator (Fig. 1) with the required valve and diaphragm housing elements.
  • Key Aspects: The petition emphasized that the ’087 patent addresses the identical problem as the ’029 patent—preventing regulator vent closure from freezing moisture—and provides a structurally identical solution.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Dependent Claims - Claims 2, 4, 6, and 8 are obvious over the ’087 patent in view of the ’157 patent.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: ’087 patent (Patent 2,620,087) and ’157 patent (Patent 3,985,157).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the ’087 patent provides the base skirt assembly as recited in the independent claims. The ’157 patent, directed to an "Adjustable Regulator Vent Cover," was argued to supply the additional limitations of the challenged dependent claims. Specifically, the ’157 patent teaches making the vent cover from a "molded plastic material" (as required by claims 2 and 6) and including a "screen element covering said lower end opening" (as required by claims 4 and 8).
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references as both are directed to protective vent covers for gas regulators facing inclement weather. The ’157 patent’s disclosure of using low-cost, high-volume, non-corrodible molded plastic would have been an obvious and desirable material choice for manufacturing the device of the ’087 patent. Similarly, adding a screen to prevent insect and debris entry is a common and predictable design feature taught by the ’157 patent.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involved the simple substitution of a known material and the addition of a conventional component to a known device for their predictable functions.

Ground 3: Anticipation of Claims 1 and 4 - Claims 1 and 4 are anticipated by the ’679 patent under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: ’679 patent (Patent 2,494,679).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the ’679 patent, titled "Vent Cap," discloses all elements of claims 1 and 4. The reference allegedly discloses a skirt receiver (hollow center post 2), a skirt member (cap 18) with a flared lower end defining an interior space, and a baffle means (baffle 36) spaced from the interior walls to permit airflow. Petitioner further argued that the ’679 patent’s disk-like screen (screen 30) satisfies the limitation of claim 4, which requires a screen element covering the lower end opening.
  • Key Aspects: The petition contended that the ’679 patent is designed for the same purpose of providing an "insect-proof, ice- and weather-proof" breather cap and explicitly teaches a flared shape to ensure ice forms away from the vent opening.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional obviousness challenges based on combinations of the ’087 patent, ’679 patent, ’573 patent (Patent 3,012,573), ’660 patent (Patent 4,957,660), the CMC Quality Communiqué (a 1992 publication), and Admitted Prior Art (APA) from the ’029 patent itself.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "baffle means" (claims 1 and 5): Petitioner argued this term should be construed under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) as a means-plus-function limitation. The recited function is "to underlie said upper end opening and being spaced from the interior walls of said skirt to permit gas flow therearound." The only corresponding structure disclosed in the ’029 patent specification is the baffle plate (element 54) and its structural equivalents.
• "skirt receiver" and "skirt receiver means" (claims 1 and 5): For the purposes of the petition, Petitioner adopted the Patent Owner's proposed constructions from related litigation. Both terms were proposed to be construed as "a structure that connects a skirt member or skirt to the vent tube of a gas pressure regulator," and not as means-plus-function terms.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-8 of the ’029 patent as unpatentable.