PTAB

IPR2019-00919

Louisiana-Pacific Corporation v. Huber Engineered Woods LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Panelized Sheathing System with Water Resistant Barrier Layer
  • Brief Description: The ’479 patent relates to sheathing systems for building walls and roofs. The system uses structural panels, such as oriented strand board (OSB), with an integrated water-resistant but vapor-permeable barrier layer, where the joints between adjacent panels are sealed with a bulk water-resistant sealant like tape.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1, 6, 7, 10-11, 16, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §102

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: APA (the "APA Engineered Wood Handbook," 2002).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that APA, a guide for engineered wood products, disclosed every element of the challenged claims. APA described panelized sheathing systems using structural wood panels (including OSB) installed adjacently over wall studs. It explicitly taught applying a "weather-resistive barrier" or "air infiltration barrier" to the panels' outer surfaces, noting these barriers (e.g., building paper, factory-applied overlays) must resist liquid water while remaining permeable to water vapor to prevent moisture trapping. APA further disclosed using sealants like caulk or "seam tape" to seal joints between panels and provided water vapor permeance data for OSB and overlaid plywood that falls within the ranges recited in claims 6 and 16.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: APA (the "APA Engineered Wood Handbook," 2002), StoGuard-2001 (2001 Sto Corp. press release), StoGuard-2003 (2003 Sto Corp. press release), and various ASTM standards, patents, and publications including Van Wagoner (Patent 4,719,723), Arnold (a 1997 article), and Grace (a 1995 publication).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that APA taught the foundational sheathing system of adjacent structural panels. The StoGuard references taught a liquid-applied, "breathable" waterproof coating (StoGold Coat) and flexible joint filler (StoGold Fill) for sheathing panels, explicitly marketed as a more effective and economical alternative to conventional housewraps. Combining these references, Petitioner argued, rendered the claimed system obvious. Additional references were cited for specific dependent claim limitations, such as Van Wagoner and Arnold for waterproof, vapor-permeable seam tape and ASTM standards (D5795 and E96) for the claimed liquid water and water vapor transmission rate test methods and ranges.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the liquid-applied StoGuard system with the panelized sheathing of APA to achieve improved resistance to water infiltration and a more cost-effective, functionally superior alternative to traditional building papers. StoGuard itself provided the motivation by presenting its system as a direct, improved substitute for conventional housewraps on wood sheathing like that shown in APA.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as this combination represented a simple substitution of one known water-resistive barrier (a liquid-applied coating) for another (building paper) to achieve the predictable result of a water-resistant, vapor-permeable wall assembly.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: APA (the "APA Engineered Wood Handbook," 2002), SmartSide MSDS (2003 material safety data sheet), ICBO (2002 evaluation report), SmartSide-2001 (2001 installation instructions), and the same supporting references as in Ground 2.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was similar to Ground 2 but proposed a different barrier system. APA again provided the base sheathing system. The SmartSide references (MSDS, ICBO report, and installation instructions) collectively taught an engineered wood siding product with a factory-applied, resin-impregnated paper overlay serving as a water-resistant barrier. SmartSide-2001 instructed installing these panels with a gap and sealing the joints with caulk. Petitioner contended that using this factory-overlaid panel system, as taught by the SmartSide references, in the general construction framework disclosed by APA rendered the claimed invention obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to substitute the factory-applied SmartGuard paper overlay for the field-applied housewrap of APA to create a more cost-effective and efficient wall system. A factory-applied barrier avoids the additional labor, time, expense, and potential for on-site application errors associated with traditional housewraps, providing a clear motivation for the combination.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would have been predictable. The combination involved substituting one known type of water-resistive barrier (a factory-applied overlay) for another (building paper) to achieve the well-known benefits of a water-resistant, vapor-permeable structure, which is a simple and predictable design choice.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’479 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.