Weber Inc v. Provisur Technologies Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2020-01557
• Patent #: 10,639,812
• Filed: September 16, 2020
• Petitioner(s): Weber, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Provisur Technologies, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-11

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Food Slicing Machine
• Brief Description: The ’812 describes an automated food slicing machine that uses an upper conveyor assembly with independently driven food grippers to feed multiple food articles into a slicing station. The invention also features a food article loading apparatus with a lift tray and a pivotal stop gate located upstream of the slicing blade to support the food articles and eject end portions.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over 2006 904 manual, Lindee, and Sandberg - Claims 1–5 and 8–11 are obvious over the 2006 904 manual in view of Lindee and Sandberg.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: 2006 904 manual (Weber Slicer CCS 904 Operating Manual), Lindee (Patent 5,628,237), and Sandberg (Application # 2009/0145272).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the 2006 904 manual, an operating manual for a commercial slicer, taught the fundamental food slicing machine of claim 1. This included a loading apparatus with a lift tray (the "product conveyor"), an overhead feed apparatus with grippers (the "product holder"), and a pivotal stop gate (the "product bed conveyor") that supports food articles and serves as a door for ejecting end pieces. To meet the limitation of "independently driven endless conveyor belts," Petitioner combined the 2006 904 manual with Lindee, which explicitly taught a food slicer with multiple, independently driven grippers, each connected to and driven by its own conveyor belt and servomotor to allow for adjusting the slice thickness of one food loaf independently of another. Finally, Petitioner asserted that Sandberg taught the claimed method of supporting food articles with the stop gate while the lift tray is moved, as Sandberg disclosed the known technique of loading a new food product while simultaneously finishing the slicing of a prior product to improve efficiency.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Lindee's independent drive system with the 904 slicer's architecture to improve the machine's functionality, a known technique for a known problem (slicing multiple loaves at different thicknesses). It would have been obvious to operate the resulting machine per Sandberg's method to improve efficiency by reducing idle time during reloading, as the 904 slicer's structure was already capable of performing this function.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as combining Lindee's drive system with the structurally similar 904 slicer involved implementing a straightforward mechanical system. Operating the machine per Sandberg required only a minor change in operational procedure, not structural modification.

Ground 2: Obviousness over 2006 904 manual, Lindee, Sandberg, and Mathues - Claims 6–7 are obvious over the 2006 904 manual in view of Lindee, Sandberg, and Mathues.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: 2006 904 manual, Lindee (Patent 5,628,237), Sandberg (Application # 2009/0145272), and Mathues (Application # 2008/0016999).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1 to address the additional limitations of dependent claims 6 and 7. Claim 6 required the drive belt to be connected to a servomotor via a driveshaft. While Lindee taught the servomotor and drive belt, it did not explicitly detail the connection. Petitioner introduced Mathues, which disclosed a food slicer where a conveyor belt is driven by a servomotor through a driven gear disposed on a driveshaft. Claim 7 required each conveyor belt to be driven independently by a servomotor, with the servomotors arranged on the same side. Lindee taught the independent servomotors, and Petitioner argued that arranging them on the same side would be an obvious design choice.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA looking to implement Lindee's drive system would have been motivated to consult references like Mathues for a conventional and reliable method of connecting a servomotor to a drive belt. Regarding servomotor placement, a POSITA would arrange them on the same side for improved maintenance access, enhanced safety by localizing rotating components, and because it was one of a finite number of possible design choices.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was a simple application of a known drive mechanism (Mathues) to an existing system (Lindee/904 manual) to achieve a predictable result. The mechanical redesign would have been minimal and well within the skill of a POSA.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted two additional grounds that were substantively identical to Grounds 1 and 2, but which replaced the 2006 904 manual with the 2010 904 manual. The 2010 manual added a disclosure of an optional feature for independently driven upper conveyors, which Petitioner argued further supported the motivation to combine with Lindee.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "food article gripper" (Claims 1, 9): Petitioner argued this term should be construed by its plain and ordinary meaning to require a structure that can actuate to grasp and release a food product. This construction was proposed to counter a potentially broader interpretation, allegedly advanced by the Patent Owner in a related foreign litigation, that would include passive structures like nubs or ridges on a conveyor belt. Petitioner contended such a broad reading was inconsistent with the ’812 patent’s disclosure of a pneumatically actuated gripper.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §325(d), asserting that the Office had not previously considered the key prior art. Specifically, the primary references (the 2006 and 2010 904 manuals) and two of the secondary references (Sandberg and Mathues) were neither cited nor applied during prosecution. Petitioner contended these references were not cumulative because they disclosed crucial details for the loading apparatus and stop gate elements that were allegedly missing from the art examined by the Office.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-11 of the ’812 patent as unpatentable.