Weber Inc v. Provisur Technologies Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-01466
• Patent #: 6,997,089
• Filed: August 9, 2019
• Petitioner(s): Weber, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Provisur Technologies, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-14

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method and Apparatus for Slicing and Classifying Food Products
• Brief Description: The ’089 patent discloses a high-speed food slicing apparatus that cuts a food loaf into slices, collects them in a stack on a conveyor, and uses an image processing system to analyze the top slice of the stack. The system classifies the stack based on characteristics like fat content and directs it to a corresponding destination.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 13, and 14 are obvious over Whitehouse, Antonissen, and Hardy.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Whitehouse (GB Patent 2,239,787), Antonissen (Patent 5,267,168), and Hardy (Patent 4,016,788).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Whitehouse taught the core system of a high-speed slicer that forms a stack of meat slices and uses a sensor to scan the top slice of that stack after it has been cut and conveyed downstream. While Whitehouse scanned for area to control weight, it was silent on classifying based on quality. Antonissen supplied this missing element by teaching an optical system with a camera that analyzes pixel data from a meat slice to determine its lean-to-fat ratio and classify the slice based on that quality assessment. To meet the final limitation of conveying the classified stack to a destination, Petitioner asserted that Hardy taught a conventional conveyor system with two-way and three-way diverters to sort meat slices into different streams based on a classification.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Antonissen’s fat-content classification with Whitehouse’s downstream scanning system to meet known industry needs. The combination would improve quality control, satisfy consumer demand for products with specific lean-to-fat ratios, and allow for product differentiation to increase profits. Petitioner contended that performing this classification after slicing (per Whitehouse) was advantageous because it allowed more time for image capture and reduced sensor maintenance compared to scanning the cut face of the loaf during slicing. A POSITA would then predictably integrate Hardy’s well-known diverter system to sort the classified stacks, as Antonissen explicitly suggested that slices with different classifications should be diverted to different locations.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because all three references described similar, compatible technologies in the food processing field. Integrating Antonissen's image processing logic into Whitehouse's control system and adding Hardy's conventional, commercially available diverter at the end of the line were presented as straightforward modifications that would yield predictable results.

Ground 2: Claims 2, 6, 7, 11, and 12 are obvious over Whitehouse, Antonissen, and Hardy in view of Wyslotsky.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Whitehouse (GB Patent 2,239,787), Antonissen (Patent 5,267,168), Hardy (Patent 4,016,788), and Wyslotsky (Patent 4,136,504).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Whitehouse, Antonissen, and Hardy to address dependent claims requiring the additional step of "weighing the stack at the same time as... generating pixel-by-pixel image data." While Whitehouse disclosed a weighing station, it was located downstream from the image sensor, implying a sequential, not simultaneous, operation. Petitioner introduced Wyslotsky to cure this deficiency, arguing that Wyslotsky explicitly taught a meat slicing system that performed photoscanning to detect defects (like excessive fat) and weighing on an automated scale "at the same time" to produce drafts of slices with a substantially uniform weight.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to improve the efficiency of the primary combination would have been motivated to incorporate Wyslotsky's teaching of simultaneous weighing and imaging. Wyslotsky’s stated goal was to improve methods for producing uniform-weight drafts of slices. Adopting this approach would streamline the production line, for example, by allowing for the removal of Whitehouse’s separate, downstream conveyor dedicated to weighing, thereby creating a more compact and efficient system.
  • Expectation of Success: The integration was argued to be predictable. A POSITA could simply relocate the weighing cell taught by Whitehouse to be co-located with the image sensor, as conceptually taught by Wyslotsky, without undue experimentation. This modification would use known components to achieve the predictable result of a more efficient production line.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate because the core prior art and arguments were not previously before the Patent Office. The primary references, Whitehouse and Hardy, were never cited or applied during the original prosecution. Although Antonissen and Wyslotsky were listed in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), the examiner never applied them to the claims. Therefore, the specific combinations and the arguments based upon them were being presented for the first time.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-14 of the ’089 patent as unpatentable.