PTAB

IPR2018-01097

HyperBranch Medical Technology Inc v. Confluent Surgical Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: SILICONE SPRAY TIP
  • Brief Description: The ’483 patent relates to an applicator assembly for mixing and spraying dual-component bioadhesives. The invention centers on a spray tip assembly with an internal mixing chamber containing a substantially cylindrical insert with a recess on its distal end to create turbulence and enhance mixing.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 19 and 21 are obvious over Spero in view of Haber

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Spero (Application # 2003/0069537) and Haber (Patent 5,341,993).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Spero disclosed a laparoscopic spray device for dual-component materials that met all limitations of claim 19 except for a recess on the distal end of its insert. Spero’s device included a manifold, an elongated shaft with separate lumens, and a tip assembly with an intermediate chamber receiving an insert described as a “spray regulator.” To supply the missing element, Petitioner pointed to Haber, which taught a topical sprayer with a substantially cylindrical swirl atomizer insert containing recesses (a ring channel and spoke channels) on its distal end to create a turbulent, atomized spray.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to improve the mixing and atomization performance of Spero’s device. Petitioner contended that Spero’s smooth-ended spray regulator was a suboptimal design and that Spero itself suggested alternative spray tips could be used. A POSITA would have recognized that incorporating a well-understood swirl atomizer, like the one in Haber, would more effectively achieve Spero’s stated goals of mixing and spraying. The improved swirling action was known to provide better mixing and a finer mist, which is beneficial for applying bioadhesives.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in this combination. The substitution was presented as a routine design choice involving similarly structured and situated components. Replacing Spero’s simple insert with Haber’s swirl atomizer would require minimal, if any, modification to the surrounding spray tip chamber. The effects of swirl atomizers were well-known and predictable, ensuring the combined device would function as intended.

Ground 2: Claims 19 and 21 are obvious over Capozzi

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Capozzi (Patent 5,116,315).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Capozzi, in view of a POSITA’s general knowledge, rendered the claims obvious. Capozzi disclosed a biological syringe system with a manifold, a forward conical nose (argued to be an "elongated shaft"), and a spray assembly with a cylindrical insert. Petitioner argued that Capozzi taught every element of claim 19 except for locating swirl-inducing recesses on the distal end of the insert itself. Instead, Capozzi disclosed these recesses (tangential channels) on the inner wall of the nozzle body, adjacent to the insert, to create a swirling flow in a final mixing chamber.
    • Motivation to Combine (Modify): Petitioner argued it would have been an obvious design choice for a POSA to relocate the swirl-inducing recesses from the nozzle wall, as taught by Capozzi, to the distal face of the insert. A POSA would have known that swirl channels could be formed on either the insert or the adjacent nozzle surface to achieve the same function. This modification was presented as a routine design choice between two known, equivalent options, potentially to simplify the mold for the nozzle body.
    • Expectation of Success: This modification would have been a predictable substitution of one known technique for another, with a high expectation of success. The function of inducing a swirling flow would be equally achieved whether the channels were on the insert or the nozzle wall.

Ground 3: Claims 19 and 21 are anticipated by Voegele

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Voegele (Application # 2008/0121657).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Voegele disclosed every element of the challenged claims in a single reference. Voegele described a surgical device for dispensing a dual-component adhesive that included sources for two components, a manifold (funnel and divider), an elongated shaft with separate component passages, and a dispensing tip. Petitioner mapped the tip structure in Voegele to the claimed three-chamber assembly: a first chamber for receiving the shaft, a second chamber for receiving an insert (mixer 293), and a final chamber before the outlet. Critically, Petitioner argued Voegele's mixer insert was substantially cylindrical and included a recess on its distal end configured to create turbulence by causing the component streams to impinge upon one another, thereby anticipating claims 19 and 21.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations including Spero in view of Kitabayashi and Green, and Dodge in view of Haber. These grounds relied on similar theories of substituting known swirl atomizer inserts with distal recesses for the simpler inserts found in the primary references to predictably improve fluid mixing and atomization.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "manifold": Petitioner proposed the construction "a connector with fluid passages." This broad construction was used to argue that the interface members in Spero (interface member 12) and Capozzi (manifold 14) met the claim limitation.
  • "elongated shaft": Petitioner proposed the construction "a body with a circular or substantially circular cross-section and a length to width ratio (i.e., aspect ratio) greater than 1." This construction was central to arguing that structures like Spero’s "elongated body" and Capozzi’s "forward nose" satisfied this limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 19 and 21 of the ’483 patent as unpatentable.