PTAB

IPR2024-00235

Provisur Technologies Inc v. Weber Maschinenbau GmbH Breidenbach

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Apparatus for Separation of a Fat Cover of a Meat Product
  • Brief Description: The ’321 patent discloses an automated food processing machine for separating a fat layer from a meat product. The system uses a contactless measurement device, such as a camera, to determine the thickness of the fat cover and a control unit that adjusts a cutting blade’s position based on the measurement and a pre-stored "travel profile."

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation - Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 14-16 are anticipated by Young

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Young (Patent 5,514,032).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Young, which was not cited during prosecution, discloses every element of the challenged claims. Young teaches a "loin separation apparatus" that includes an imaging system with multiple cameras (a contactless measurement device) to determine the fat/lean separation line. A controller in Young uses this data to control a variable knife assembly, adjusting its position along several axes to separate the pork loin from the belly. Petitioner asserted that Young’s controller generates and stores "cutting profiles" based on the image data, which correspond to the claimed "travel profile" and dictate the cutting path based on product feed.

Ground 2: Obviousness - Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 14-16 are obvious over Young in view of Norrie

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Young (Patent 5,514,032) and Norrie (Patent 4,979,269).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Young provides the complete base system for automated fat removal. To the extent the Patent Owner might argue Young does not explicitly teach determining the "thickness" of a fat cover, Norrie supplies this teaching. Norrie, also not cited during prosecution, describes a device that uses a camera to specifically sense the "thickness of back fat on the loin portion" and automatically adjusts a knife blade based on that sensed thickness.
    • Motivation to Combine: The petition asserted that Young itself provides a compelling motivation to combine. Young explicitly cites the Norrie patent by number as an exemplary "automated loin separation system" that addresses problems associated with manual processing. Furthermore, Young states that its control system can be modified to "incorporate different accessory components" and "additional imaging and motion functionality" to provide "more sophisticated profiles," directly suggesting the type of improvement taught by Norrie.
    • Expectation of Success: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining these references. The integration would involve incorporating Norrie's known thickness-sensing camera functionality into Young's substantially similar apparatus to achieve the predictable benefits of greater accuracy and customization, a routine modification in the field.

Ground 3: Obviousness - Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 14-16 are obvious over Johnson in view of Belk

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Johnson (Patent 6,929,540) and Belk (Patent 6,198,834).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presents an alternative combination where the fat trimming system of Johnson is improved with the advanced contactless imaging taught by Belk. Johnson discloses a system for trimming fat that uses a physical probe assembly to measure the fat-to-lean interface, a controller that stores this contour as a map (the "travel profile"), and a variable cutting blade that follows the mapped contour. Belk discloses a sophisticated meat imaging system that uses a camera to contactlessly analyze various meat characteristics, including the presence and size of fat, to improve USDA grading.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Belk's contactless system with Johnson's machine to improve accuracy, quality, and functionality. Petitioner argued that Johnson’s physical probes have known drawbacks, including causing potential damage to the meat and creating a source of contamination. Johnson itself suggests upgrading its system, stating that "Optical technology or infrared sensor technology can be utilized or any other appropriate sensor technology." This provides an explicit reason to replace the invasive probes with a superior, contactless imaging system like the one taught by Belk.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in modifying Johnson's apparatus by replacing the probe assembly with Belk's imaging system. Belk's system was specifically designed for meat analysis, and its integration would involve the routine task of installing a camera and coupling its data output to Johnson's existing controller to achieve the known advantages of non-invasive sensing.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that no claim terms require explicit construction and that the prior art renders the claims unpatentable under their plain and ordinary meaning.
  • For reference, the petition presented constructions from a parallel district court proceeding, including defining "travel profile" as the "Contour of the fat trimming blade height over the length of the meat product."
  • Petitioner asserted the cited art meets the claim limitations under either its own proposed constructions or those proposed by the Patent Owner in the parallel litigation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate.
  • It asserted that the district court trial is scheduled for November 2024, likely after a Final Written Decision (FWD) in this inter partes review (IPR) would issue.
  • The petition was filed diligently within months of the ’321 patent being asserted in litigation, and discovery in that case is in its early stages.
  • Petitioner contended there is not a direct overlap of issues, as the prior art grounds asserted in the IPR will not be raised in court, and several challenged claims are not asserted in the litigation.
  • The petition asserted that it presents compelling evidence of unpatentability, which, under recent USPTO guidance, weighs strongly against discretionary denial.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 14-16 of the ’321 patent as unpatentable.