PTAB

IPR2019-00919

Louisiana Pacific Corp v. Huber Engineered Woods LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Panelized Sheathing System
  • Brief Description: The ’479 patent relates to sheathing systems for walls and roofs using structural panels with a secured, water-resistant, yet vapor-permeable barrier layer. The system includes sealing the joints between adjacent panels with a bulk water-resistant sealant.

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 by APA

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: APA (the "APA Engineered Wood Handbook," 2002).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the APA handbook, a comprehensive guide for wood frame construction, discloses every element of the challenged claims. APA teaches a complete panelized sheathing system comprising adjacent structural wood panels (including OSB) installed on a building frame. It explicitly describes applying a "weather-resistive barrier" or "water-resistive barrier" to the panels' outer surface, noting these barriers must be permeable to water vapor to prevent moisture trapping. Examples include building paper and factory-applied overlays on plywood. APA further recommends a 1/8" spacing at panel edge joints and discloses using elastomeric sealants (caulks) and "seam tape" to seal these joints. Petitioner asserted that water vapor permeance data for OSB and plywood in APA’s tables falls within the range recited in claim 6.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1-20 over APA in view of StoGuard and other references

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: APA (2002 handbook), StoGuard-2001 & StoGuard-2003 (press releases for a fluid-applied barrier system), ASTM D5795 & ASTM Report (Cobb Ring test method), Alaska (2000 building material report), ASTM E96 (water vapor transmission test method), Van Wagoner (Patent 4,719,723), Arnold (1997 article), Hsu (Patent 5,616,419), DuPont (2004 press release), and Grace (1995 publication).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that APA discloses the foundational panelized sheathing system, including panels, a water-resistive barrier, and sealed joints. The StoGuard references teach a liquid-applied, "breathable" (i.e., vapor permeable) waterproof coating and flexible joint filler system. This system is described as a modern, cost-effective, and superior alternative to the conventional housewraps (like building paper) disclosed in APA. The remaining references were cited to teach specific properties or components, such as liquid water transmission rates (ASTM D5795), vapor permeance values (Alaska, ASTM E96), and various types of water-resistant, vapor-permeable seam tapes (Arnold, Van Wagoner, Grace, DuPont).
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the StoGuard fluid-applied barrier and joint filler with the basic sheathing system of APA. The motivation would be to achieve improved resistance to water and air infiltration in a more cost-effective and functionally efficient manner than using traditional housewraps. This represents a simple substitution of one known type of water-resistive barrier (fluid-applied) for another (building paper) to gain predictable benefits advertised by the substitute product.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involves applying known products (a sheathing system and a barrier coating) for their intended and well-understood purposes, yielding only predictable results.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 1-20 over APA in view of SmartSide and other references

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: APA (2002 handbook), SmartSide-MSDS (2003 material safety data sheet), ICBO (2002 evaluation report), SmartSide-2001 (2001 installation instructions), and the same secondary references relied upon in Ground 2 (ASTM D5795, Alaska, etc.).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground proposes substituting a different known barrier system into the APA framework. APA again provides the basic panelized sheathing system. The SmartSide and ICBO references disclose a commercially available engineered wood siding product that incorporates a factory-applied barrier layer, specifically a "phenolic resin-saturated, primed paper overlay." The SmartSide installation instructions explicitly teach installing these panels with a gap between them and sealing the joints with caulk. Petitioner argued that the claimed liquid water and water vapor transmission rates are inherent properties of this existing SmartSide product.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to use the SmartSide panel, with its integrated factory-applied barrier, in place of a plain panel requiring a separate, field-applied barrier as taught by APA. The motivation is driven by clear advantages in cost-effectiveness and efficiency. A factory-applied overlay reduces on-site labor, avoids the time and expense of installing a separate housewrap, and minimizes the risk of on-site application errors, thereby improving the reliability of the water-resistive barrier.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected, as this combination merely involves using an improved, commercially available structural panel (with an integrated barrier) within the conventional construction framework taught by APA. The substitution provides the predictable benefits of increased efficiency and reliability.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent 9,546,479 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.