Weber Inc v. Provisur Technologies Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-01467
• Patent #: 6,320,141
• Filed: August 9, 2019
• Petitioner(s): Weber, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Provisur Technologies, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-34

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System and Method for Monitoring Product Yield
• Brief Description: The ’141 patent discloses a system and method for monitoring the yield of a food product, such as meat, during a slicing and packaging process. The system uses a plurality of scales, including an input scale and an output scale, to communicate weight data to a central "yield monitor" that calculates and displays the system's overall yield.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Carey, Payne, and Sigurdsson - Claims 1-6 and 8-19 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Carey in view of Payne and Sigurdsson.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Carey (Patent 5,481,466), Payne (EP 0933690 A2), and Sigurdsson (Patent 6,164,174).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of these references teaches every element of the challenged claims. Carey was asserted to teach a base meat slicing system with an input scale (load cells) for measuring inweight and an output scale for measuring the outweight of sliced product drafts, with data logged to a computer system. Payne was asserted to teach the missing element of monitoring product yield by explicitly disclosing a system that calculates yield (total packed weight divided by total supplied weight) and displays it to a user. Sigurdsson was argued to supplement Carey by explicitly teaching the electronic communication of both inweight and outweight measurements to a central computer system for processing, a detail Petitioner contended was implicit in Carey but explicit in Sigurdsson.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would combine Carey and Payne because monitoring yield was an essential and highly desirable function in food processing plants to track efficiency, predict output, and identify waste. A POSA would have been further motivated to incorporate Sigurdsson's teachings to automate the data collection process, which was a known method for improving the speed and accuracy of record-keeping and facilitating real-time process control.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success. The proposed combination involved implementing a known mathematical calculation (yield) on a system (Carey) that already possessed the necessary hardware (scales, computer). Using a computer to automate data collection and perform calculations was a common, predictable practice in the field.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Carey, Payne, Sigurdsson, and Lindee - Claims 7 and 20-34 are obvious under §103 over Carey, Payne, and Sigurdsson, further in view of Lindee.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Carey (Patent 5,481,466), Payne (EP 0933690 A2), Sigurdsson (Patent 6,164,174), and Lindee (Patent 5,499,719).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1 to address claims reciting a "makeweight scale" (e.g., claims 7 and 20). Petitioner argued the base combination of Carey, Payne, and Sigurdsson taught the automated yield monitoring system. The additional reference, Lindee, was asserted to teach a food slicing machine that incorporates a "makeweight station" with a dedicated scale. In Lindee, off-weight drafts are diverted to this station where an operator adds or subtracts slices to meet weight requirements, using the scale to verify the corrected weight before the draft is returned to the main production line. This disclosure was argued to directly teach the makeweight scale limitations.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would be motivated to add a makeweight station as taught by Lindee to the base processing line. Carey already disclosed a reject conveyor for off-weight products but did not specify the destination. Lindee provided a conventional and necessary solution for handling such products to ensure they meet commercial and legal standards. Combining these known elements addressed a known problem with a well-established solution.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSA would have had a high expectation of success, as this modification involved integrating a conventional component (a makeweight station with a scale) into a food processing line for its established and intended purpose.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate. The petition asserted that the primary prior art references relied upon—Carey, Payne, and Sigurdsson—were never considered or applied by the examiner during the original prosecution. It was noted that the application leading to the ’141 patent was allowed without a single Office Action, indicating that the arguments and art presented in the petition are not cumulative and raise substantial new questions of patentability.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review for claims 1-34 of Patent 6,320,141 and the cancellation of those claims as unpatentable.