PTAB

IPR2018-01168

HyperBranch Medical Technology Inc v. Confluent Surgical Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Spray Applicator
  • Brief Description: The ’453 patent describes a spray applicator assembly for mixing and applying dual-component solutions, such as bioadhesives. The assembly features an applicator tip containing an internal mixing chamber and an insert member with radially extending slots designed to mix fluid components and pressurized gas prior to spraying.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground I: Obviousness over Hoogenakker and Skorka - Claims 1, 2, and 4 are obvious over Hoogenakker in view of Skorka.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hoogenakker (Application # 2007/0005007) and Skorka (Patent 4,826,048).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hoogenakker discloses all elements of claim 1 except for the specific insert member. Hoogenakker teaches a gas-assisted spray applicator with a connector, an elongated multi-lumen body, and a spray tip with a mixing chamber functionally described as creating a "vortex." Petitioner asserted that Skorka teaches the missing element: an insert for a nozzle with grooves on its end faces and/or circumference designed to induce a swirling flow to "intensely mix" fluid components.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would understand that Hoogenakker’s functionally-described "vortex" required a physical structure to create a swirling flow. To implement this known function, a POSITA would look to well-known structures like the swirl atomizer insert taught by Skorka. Hoogenakker itself discusses Skorka, which Petitioner contended would have suggested Skorka's structure as an effective means for creating the desired vortex.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involved implementing a well-understood mechanical component (Skorka's swirl insert) to achieve a desired, predictable fluid dynamic effect (a vortex) within Hoogenakker’s applicator.

Ground II: Obviousness over Hoogenakker and Togashi - Claims 1, 2, and 4 are obvious over Hoogenakker in view of Togashi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hoogenakker (Application # 2007/0005007) and Togashi (Application # 2008/0121738).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner relied on Hoogenakker for the same elements as in Ground I. The argument asserted that Togashi, like Skorka, supplied the missing insert member limitation. Togashi discloses a spray nozzle with a core insert that features "upstream side recessed passages" and "downstream side recessed passages" on its ends, which are radially extending slots configured to impart a turbulent, swirling motion to the fluid.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was identical to that in Ground I: a POSITA seeking to add a structure to Hoogenakker's applicator to create the functionally-claimed "vortex" would find the swirl-inducing insert from Togashi to be a suitable and obvious choice from the known art of swirl atomizers.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be predictable because the principles of swirl atomization, as taught by Togashi, were well-known. Incorporating Togashi's insert into Hoogenakker's tip was presented as a routine design choice with predictable results in mixing and atomization.

Ground V: Obviousness over Campbell, Spero, and Kitabayashi - Claims 1, 2, and 4 are obvious over Campbell in view of Spero and Kitabayashi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Campbell (Application # 2006/0189944), Spero (Application # 2003/0069537), and Kitabayashi (Japanese Utility Model Application Publication No. 3-32959).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that this combination supplies all claimed elements. Campbell teaches a base spray apparatus with a connector, material supply ports, a gas inlet, and an elongated body with separate lumens. Spero was cited to add the teaching of a detachable spray tip with an internal mixing chamber. Finally, Kitabayashi was introduced to teach the specific claimed insert: a columnar piece with radially extending "cut grooves" on both its proximal and distal ends, designed to create a turbulent, swirling flow and atomized spray.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA starting with Campbell's external-mixing sprayer would be motivated to improve mixing efficiency by incorporating an internal mixing tip, as taught by references Campbell itself incorporates. Spero provides such a disposable tip. To further improve mixing and atomization within Spero’s tip, a POSITA would replace Spero’s simplistic "spray regulator" with a known, high-efficiency swirl atomizer insert like the one taught in Kitabayashi.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that modifying Campbell’s device with Spero’s tip, and subsequently substituting Spero's basic insert with Kitabayashi's more effective swirl-inducing insert, represented routine design modifications. The effects of swirl atomizers were predictable, ensuring a high expectation of success in achieving enhanced mixing and atomization.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges against claims 1, 2, and 4 based on Hoogenakker in view of Kitabayashi (Ground III) and Hoogenakker in view of Haber (Ground IV), relying on similar theories that a POSITA would have incorporated known swirl atomizer inserts to implement Hoogenakker’s functionally-described vortex tip.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "radially extending slot": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a slot with a length dimension that extends, at least in part, between the center and periphery of the end of the insert." This construction was central to the petition's arguments. Petitioner argued that the "radially extending" limitation must apply to the slot's primary dimension (length), not a secondary dimension like depth. This was contrasted with the Patent Owner's alleged litigation position, which Petitioner claimed improperly interpreted the depth of a longitudinally-extending slot as satisfying the "radially extending" limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, and 4 of the ’453 patent as unpatentable.