PTAB

IPR2017-00476

JM Van der Hoeven BV v. Houweling NurSeries Oxnard Inc

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Greenhouse and Forced Greenhouse Climate Control System and Method
  • Brief Description: The ’617 patent discloses a climate control system for a greenhouse. The system uses a substantially enclosed "end gable" adjacent to the main growing section to selectively draw in outside ambient air, recirculate air from the growing section, or use a combination of both to control the internal environment.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Reisinger - Claims 1-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19-27, and 29 are obvious over Reisinger.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Reisinger (EP 1464219 A1).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Reisinger, a European patent application, disclosed every element of the challenged claims. Reisinger teaches a greenhouse with a climate control system located in a substantially enclosed "end section" adjacent to the "cultivating area" (growing section). This system includes a fresh air inlet, a recirculated air inlet (vents), and a movable flap (louver) to control the ratio of fresh to recirculated air. Petitioner contended this structure allows for the three modes of operation required by claim 1: flowing ambient air, re-circulating internal air, and a combination thereof. Similarly, for claim 17, Reisinger was alleged to disclose heating and cooling elements (heat exchangers) within the end section to control the temperature of the air flowing into the cultivating area.
    • Key Aspects: This ground asserted that a single prior art reference rendered the broad independent claims and numerous dependent claims obvious. The argument relied on Petitioner's proposed claim construction of "end gable" as an "interior space or section at an end wall," which Petitioner argued Reisinger's "end section" satisfied.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Reisinger and Jones - Claims 6 and 23 are obvious over Reisinger in view of Jones.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Reisinger (EP 1464219 A1), Jones (Patent 3,807,088).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims requiring a cooling mechanism operable to cool ambient air "passing through the first vent." Petitioner asserted that while Reisinger disclosed a cooling mechanism (heat exchanger), it was located within the end section, after the air has entered the vent. Jones, however, disclosed using evaporative cooling pads located directly at the air intake vent of a greenhouse.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Reisinger's system with Jones's vent-located cooling mechanism to achieve optimum environmental conditions for growing plants. Petitioner argued that cooling ambient air at the vent was a well-known, conventional technique, and both references were in the same field of greenhouse climate control.
    • Expectation of Success: Incorporating Jones's cooling pads at Reisinger's fresh air inlet was presented as a predictable design choice that would not alter the fundamental operation of either element. A POSITA would expect success because the air would be cooled before entering the main climate control section, consistent with Reisinger's overall purpose.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Reisinger and Landstrom - Claims 1-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19-27, and 29 are obvious over Reisinger in view of Landstrom.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Reisinger (EP 1464219 A1), Landstrom (Patent 4,567,732).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative to Ground 1, contingent on the term "end gable" being construed to require a pitched roof. Petitioner argued that while Reisinger disclosed the functional climate control system, it did not explicitly show a pitched roof over its end section. Landstrom, however, expressly disclosed a greenhouse with a pitched-roof end gable containing climate control hardware.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to use a pitched roof, as taught by Landstrom, with Reisinger's climate control system as a simple design choice. Pitched roofs were ubiquitous and a standard design for glass greenhouses. Both references are directed to climate control systems located at the end wall of a greenhouse.
    • Expectation of Success: There was a reasonable expectation of success in combining a known roof shape with a known climate control system. Petitioner asserted that the shape of the roof has no bearing on the operation of the internal vents, louvers, and fans, making the combination predictable and straightforward.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on Reisinger in view of individual secondary references (Brault for a roof vent; Kaiser for a computer controller; Assaf for storing warmed water; Kinnis for specifying cool ambient air). Petitioner also asserted parallel grounds combining Reisinger and Landstrom with each of these same secondary references.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "end gable" / "end portion": Petitioner proposed the construction "interior space or section at an end wall." This construction was argued to be supported by the patent's specification and figures, which depict the end gable as an interior space for housing the climate control system, not necessarily requiring a pitched roof. This construction is central because it determines whether a reference like Reisinger alone is sufficient (Ground 1) or if a reference like Landstrom is needed to teach a pitched roof (Ground 7).
  • "vent": Petitioner proposed the construction "vent or opening." This was based on the specification's interchangeable use of the terms and the fact that the claims recite "louvers" as separate, distinct structures that control airflow through the vents. This construction implies the vent itself is a simple aperture without mechanical components.
  • "second louver": Petitioner argued the word "second" in this term has no limiting effect and simply means "louver," as no "first louver" is recited in the claim dependency chain.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-29 of Patent 8,707,617 as unpatentable.