PTAB

IPR2020-00184

Reckitt Benckiser LLC v. GeMAK Trust

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Granulated Percarbonate Compound for Detergents
Brief Description: The ’514 patent relates to a granulated percarbonate bleaching agent for use in detergent products. The invention seeks to improve the stability of the percarbonate by encapsulating it in a specific blend comprising a sulfate, carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), and a nonionic surfactant, making it suitable for storage in water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) film packaging.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Baston (International Publication No. WO 1995/28467).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Baston teaches every element of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4. Baston discloses a detergent composition with a granulated percarbonate bleaching agent (specifically sodium percarbonate, as required by claim 2) that is encapsulated to delay its release. The encapsulating blend or coating in Baston is a composite that combines inorganic salts, such as "alkali metal sulphates" (satisfying the "sulfate" and "sodium sulfate" limitations of claims 1, 3, and 4), with organic binder materials. Baston explicitly identifies two types of suitable organic binders: polymeric materials, including "carboxymethylcellulose [CMC]," and nonionic surfactants, such as "C10-C20 alcohol ethoxylates." Petitioner asserted that Baston’s disclosure of combining these specific components in a single coating system anticipates the claimed invention.
- Key Aspects: Petitioner highlighted that the European Patent Office, during the prosecution of the priority PCT application, had already issued a search report identifying Baston as an "X" reference, indicating it anticipated nearly identical claims.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Baston (WO 1995/28467), Besse (International Publication No. WO 1992/01037), and Lagnemo (Patent 5,336,433).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: These claims depend from claims 1, 2, and 3, and add the limitation that the nonionic surfactant is a specific "alkyl (C6 to C12) aryl polyglycol ethoxylate." While Baston discloses alcohol ethoxylates as a suitable nonionic surfactant, it does not explicitly name the specific type claimed. Besse and Lagnemo, however, both address similar problems in detergent formulation and expressly teach the use of the claimed alkyl phenol ethoxylates (a synonymous term) as preferred nonionic surfactants for encapsulating coatings.
- Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), seeking to implement or optimize the coating taught in Baston, would combine its teachings with other known surfactant options for detergent encapsulation. Besse and Lagnemo provided a finite and known set of predictable surfactant choices, including the claimed ethoxylate, for this exact purpose.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as Besse and Lagnemo demonstrate the suitability and effectiveness of the claimed surfactant in similar coating applications, making its substitution into Baston's system a matter of routine design choice with predictable results.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Baston (WO 1995/28467), Besse (WO 1992/01037), Lagnemo (Patent 5,336,433), and Falou (Patent 5,160,654).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground presents a comprehensive obviousness challenge against all claims. It relies on Baston, supplemented by Besse and Lagnemo, to teach the encapsulated percarbonate compound with all three coating components, as detailed in the grounds above. To meet the final limitation of claim 8—that the compound is "enclosed by PVA film packaging"—Petitioner cited Besse and Falou. Both references explicitly teach packaging detergent compositions, including those containing sodium percarbonate, in water-soluble sachets made from PVA film to achieve well-known benefits such as pre-measured dosing and reduced user contact.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to package the stabilized percarbonate compound from Baston using the PVA film technology taught by Besse and Falou. This combination represents the simple application of a conventional and highly desirable packaging format to a compatible detergent product to gain established market advantages.
- Expectation of Success: The combination of a known stabilized ingredient with a known packaging method was entirely predictable and would have been expected to succeed without undue experimentation.

"for use in detergent products storable in PVA film packaging" (preamble of claim 1): Petitioner argued this preamble phrase is a non-limiting statement of intended use and purpose. The body of claim 1 recites a structurally complete invention (the granulated compound itself), and the preamble merely describes a potential application. Petitioner noted that the Examiner reached the same conclusion during prosecution, affording this language no patentable weight. This construction was used to distinguish the scope of claim 1 from that of claim 8, where the PVA packaging is recited as a structural limitation within the body of the claim.

Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) would be inappropriate. Although the primary prior art references, Baston and Besse, were identified in the International Search Report and disclosed to the USPTO in an Information Disclosure Statement, the Examiner never cited, relied upon, or substantively addressed them during prosecution. Instead, the Examiner's rejections were based on different, less material prior art. Petitioner contended that the Examiner erred by overlooking this stronger art and that, consequently, the arguments presented in the petition are not cumulative and warrant consideration on the merits.

Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-8 of Patent 6,787,514 as unpatentable.