PTAB

IPR2025-01020

Ascentcare Dental Products Inc v. Solmetex LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: INTRAORAL DEVICE WITH MESH
  • Brief Description: The ’969 patent discloses a dental isolation mouthpiece designed to retract a patient's tongue and cheek while providing suction. The device is configured as a "pocket" comprising first and second walls, perforations for fluid removal, and an internal bridge structure with wave-shaped protrusions to prevent the walls from collapsing under suction.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation or Obviousness over Black - Claim 19 is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 or, in the alternative, is obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Black.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Black (Patent 8,029,280).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Black, which discloses an intra-oral tongue shield aspirator, teaches every limitation of independent claim 19. Black’s device was described as a pocket comprising a posterior layer (first wall) and an anterior layer (second wall) that correspond in shape. Petitioner contended that transverse walls (48c, 348c) within Black’s aspirator constitute the claimed “bridge structure,” as they protrude from an interior surface and form a wave shape of crests and troughs that prevent collapse. The perforations, suction connector, connecting wall, and cheek retractor elements were also allegedly disclosed in various embodiments of Black.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 alternative): To the extent features are found in different embodiments within Black, Petitioner argued a POSITA would find it obvious to combine them. For instance, combining the connecting wall from one embodiment with the main body of another would provide predictable structural integrity.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 alternative): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in combining features from different embodiments of the same reference, as it does not require a leap of inventiveness to achieve the predictable functions described.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Park and Baughan - Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14, and 16-19 are obvious over Park in view of Baughan.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Park (Korean Patent No. KR10-1082826) and Baughan (Patent 3,101,543).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Park teaches a dental mouthpiece with nearly all the features of the challenged claims, including a main body portion configured as a four-sided pocket with anterior, posterior, and side walls defining an interior space for suction. Park also discloses perforations, a cheek retractor, and construction from a flexible material like silicone. However, Petitioner contended that Park is silent regarding an internal anti-collapse structure. Baughan was argued to cure this deficiency by teaching a saliva ejector with projecting, spaced-apart discs that prevent an outer sleeve from collapsing onto an inner suction tube. These discs create a wave shape with crests and troughs, allowing fluid to pass.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have recognized that Park’s flexible mouthpiece was susceptible to collapsing under suction, which would block fluid flow. To solve this predictable problem, a POSITA would combine Park’s mouthpiece with the known anti-collapse technique taught by Baughan. The motivation was to improve the functionality of Park’s device by incorporating Baughan's simple mechanical structures to ensure the mouthpiece remained open during use.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known solution (Baughan’s anti-collapse discs) to a known device (Park’s flexible mouthpiece) to achieve a predictable result (preventing collapse and maintaining suction). Therefore, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claim 10 is obvious over Park, Baughan, Johnson, and Hirsch (adding a stability spine); claims 13 and 15 are obvious over Park, Baughan, Johnson, and Black (adding wall thickness variations and a removable bite block); and claim 19 is further obvious over Black in view of Hirsch (adding evacuation holes).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the challenged claims are invalid regardless of whether its own or the Patent Owner's claim constructions are adopted. However, Petitioner highlighted that the Patent Owner has advanced broad constructions during litigation that are central to the dispute. Specifically, the Patent Owner has allegedly interpreted "corresponding shape" to include two walls of very different sizes and shapes and has identified a bite block as a "connecting wall" despite the patent specification describing it as separate and detachable. Petitioner’s invalidity arguments address these broader constructions.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4 and 6-19 of the ’969 patent as unpatentable.