PTAB

IPR2022-00652

Markforged Inc v. Continuous Composites Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus for Continuous Composite Three-Dimensional Printing
  • Brief Description: The ’543 patent relates to a method and apparatus for additive manufacturing. The method involves simultaneously extruding a composite of at least two materials—a liquid primary material and a solid continuous strand secondary material completely encased within the liquid—which is then cured to produce a hardened object.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lipsker and Wohrl - Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 18, 20-22, 24-26, 28-33, 35, and 37-40 are obvious over [Lipsker](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2022-00652/doc/1008) in view of [Wohrl](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2022-00652/doc/1006).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lipsker (Patent 6,153,034) and Wohrl (U.K. Patent Application GB2213793).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Lipsker and Wohrl taught all limitations of the challenged claims. Lipsker disclosed a rapid prototyping method of depositing layers of wire pre-coated with a curable adhesive (a primary liquid material and a secondary strand material) using a computer-controlled system. Wohrl disclosed an automated method for manufacturing fiber-reinforced components by extruding a fiber strand continuously impregnated with a liquid resin matrix. Petitioner contended these references collectively taught key limitations of independent claim 1, including extruding a path of primary (liquid) and secondary (strand) materials, encasing the strand, coupling the path to an anchor point by curing the adhesive/resin, pulling the path through the opening, and hardening the primary material.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Lipsker and Wohrl because both references were directed to automated, computer-based methods for manufacturing three-dimensional objects from fiber-like materials and a curable substance. Petitioner asserted that Lipsker’s teachings, such as using a cutter to form complex geometries, offered predictable improvements that would complement Wohrl’s continuous fiber dispensing process without contradiction.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the combination involved applying known techniques from one system (Lipsker) to a similar system (Wohrl) to achieve predictable results, such as improved geometric complexity.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Lipsker, Wohrl, and Ma - Claims 5, 9, 11, 19, 27, 34, 36, and 41 are obvious over [Lipsker](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2022-00652/doc/1008) in view of [Wohrl](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2022-00652/doc/1006), and further in view of [Ma](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2022-00652/doc/1007).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lipsker (Patent 6,153,034), Wohrl (U.K. Patent Application GB2213793), and Ma (Dissertation Thesis, “Solid Freeform Fabrication of Continuous Fiber Reinforced Composite Material”).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ma provided teachings for specific claim limitations not explicitly detailed in the base combination of Lipsker and Wohrl. Specifically, Ma was introduced to teach applying tension to the extruded path (claims 5 and 36), as Ma described a "Passive" material supply method where the composite material ("towpreg") is "pulled out by the object" via the object's pulling force. Ma was also cited for using multiple materials for the primary resin (claim 9), using multiple strands for the secondary material (claims 11 and 27), and using a monitoring sensor to provide feedback data to adjust the extrusion process (claim 19).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Ma with Lipsker and Wohrl because all three references were in the same field of computer-controlled composite manufacturing. Ma was argued to complement the primary references by providing detailed information on material selection, processing variations (e.g., active vs. passive material supply), and process control that Lipsker and Wohrl omitted for brevity.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would yield predictable results, as Ma’s detailed disclosures provided a POSITA with the necessary information to immediately apply its teachings to the systems of Lipsker and Wohrl without undue experimentation.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Lipsker, Wohrl, and Crump - Claim 23 is obvious over [Lipsker](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2022-00652/doc/1008) in view of [Wohrl](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2022-00652/doc/1006), and further in view of [Crump](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2022-00652/doc/1009).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lipsker (Patent 6,153,034), Wohrl (U.K. Patent Application GB2213793), and Crump (Patent 5,121,329).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner introduced Crump specifically to teach the limitations of claim 23, which required the extruder’s openings to be "adjustable in at least one of shape and size." Crump explicitly disclosed an extrusion head with a dispensing outlet that was size-adjustable, either by using interchangeable inserts or a mechanism analogous to a camera's variable aperture.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would incorporate Crump’s teachings into the Lipsker/Wohrl system to gain added functionality and versatility. Crump disclosed hardware options, like adjustable extrusion heads, that represented a well-known design choice for improving 3D printing systems. This modification would predictably increase the range of material cross-sections that could be used, allowing for the creation of more complex objects.
    • Expectation of Success: Modifying the Lipsker/Wohrl system with Crump's adjustable nozzle would be a straightforward and predictable improvement, as it would not interfere with the fundamental printing methods of the primary references.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The parallel district court litigation was in a very early stage, with fact discovery not yet closed and no substantive investment by the court. The scheduled trial date was approximately 21 months from the petition filing, well after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD) in the inter partes review (IPR). Furthermore, the IPR challenges a broader set of claims (1-15 and 17-41) than those asserted in the district court action, weighing against denial.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-15 and 17-41 of the ’543 patent as unpatentable.