PTAB

IPR2024-00224

Provisur Technologies Inc v. Textor Maschinenbau GmbH

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Slicing apparatus for food products
  • Brief Description: The ’487 patent discloses a slicing apparatus that includes a removable conveyor belt unit. The unit is coupled to a drive via a drive belt, and the coupling is configured to be cancelled for removal by relaxing the drive belt through a relative movement between the drive and the conveyor unit.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Konishi - Claims 1, 6, 9, 15-16 are anticipated by Konishi under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Konishi (JPH 06-117905).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Konishi, which discloses a removable belt conveyor for a weighing device in a confectionery line, teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Konishi allegedly shows a removable conveyor belt unit (subframe, belt, rollers), a substructure (frame) with a mount (hooks), a drive motor, and a drive belt. Petitioner asserted that Konishi explicitly describes a removal process where a relative movement between the conveyor unit and the drive causes the interlocking timing belt to become "loose," thereby allowing for easy removal. This process was argued to directly correspond to the ’487 patent’s claim limitation of cancelling the drive coupling by "relaxing the drive belt."
    • Key Aspects: This anticipation argument is predicated on Petitioner's position that the claim preamble "slicing apparatus for food products" is not a limitation on claim scope, which would permit a reference from the weighing device art to anticipate the claims.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Konishi in view of Lindee - Claims 1-4, 6, 9-10, 14-16, and 22 are obvious over Konishi in view of Lindee.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Konishi (JPH 06-117905) and Lindee (WO 03/065786).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative in the event the Board finds the preamble to be limiting. Petitioner contended that Konishi teaches the complete mechanical structure and removal process of the claimed removable conveyor, including the relax/tauten feature. Lindee was cited to provide the context of a "slicing apparatus," as its title is "Conveyor System for Slicer Apparatus," and it discloses conveyors that are "removable for cleaning and sanitizing."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Konishi's detailed mechanism with a food slicer like Lindee's to achieve improved maintenance, cleanliness, and efficiency. Petitioner argued these are well-known goals in the food processing industry and are explicitly stated as objectives in the Konishi reference, providing a clear reason to apply its teachings to the slicing art.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in this combination. Removable conveyors were common in food processing equipment, making the application of one known removable conveyor design (Konishi) into a known type of machine that uses them (Lindee) a predictable and straightforward engineering task.

Ground 3: Obviousness over McLaughlin - Claims 1-4, 6, 9-10, 14-16, and 22 are obvious over McLaughlin.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: McLaughlin (Patent 9,296,120).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that McLaughlin, which discloses a slicing machine with a removable check scale, teaches all structural elements of the independent claims. McLaughlin shows a removable conveyor unit (check scale 200), a substructure with mounts (sidewalls 230 with attachment points), a drive motor, and a drive belt. Petitioner contended that while McLaughlin does not explicitly state the belt is relaxed for removal, this function would have been obvious from its figures, which depict a removal process of pivoting and sliding the unit off its mounts.
    • Motivation to Modify: The motivation was argued to be inherent in the disclosed structure. A POSITA viewing McLaughlin's design for a removable conveyor would have understood that the depicted removal process would necessarily cause the drive belt to slacken (relax) to enable disengagement, making the claimed function an obvious consequence of the disclosed design.
    • Expectation of Success: A high expectation of success was asserted, as the argument relies on the inherent operation of the disclosed mechanical structure and basic mechanical principles well-known to a POSITA in the field.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 1-4, 6, 9-10, 14-16, and 22 over McLaughlin in view of Konishi. This ground proposed combining McLaughlin’s slicing apparatus with Konishi’s explicit disclosure of a relax/tauten removal mechanism.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the preamble "slicing apparatus for food products" is not limiting. This position is crucial to the anticipation ground (Ground 1). Petitioner asserted that the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention and the preamble only states an intended use, a position it claimed was supported by the patent’s prosecution history where the examiner adopted the same view.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The core argument was that the parallel district court litigation is in its early stages, with a trial date projected to be well after the IPR’s potential final written decision. Petitioner also contended that the issues do not substantially overlap, as the IPR uses different prior art and challenges claims not asserted in the district court. Finally, Petitioner asserted that the petition presents compelling merits, which strongly weighs against denial.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4, 6, 9-10, 14-16, and 22 of the ’487 patent as unpatentable.