Safe Arc Technology LLC v. Petrohab LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-01214
• Patent #: 9,545,775
• Filed: July 2, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Safe Arc Tech., LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Al-Azem
• Challenged Claims: 1-12

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Attachment Systems and Methods Usable to Form Enclosures
• Brief Description: The ’775 patent is directed to a modular enclosure for performing hot work, such as welding in hazardous environments. The system uses multiple heat-resistant panels that engage via specific clamp-style, male/female hook-and-loop fasteners to form a seal sufficient to maintain a pressure differential between the interior and exterior of the enclosure.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Wardlaw and Ferrante - Claims 1-4 are obvious over Wardlaw in view of Ferrante.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Wardlaw (Application # 2008/0282652) and Ferrante (Patent 5,713,089).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Wardlaw teaches the foundational concept: a modular, pressurized welding enclosure unit composed of separate panels secured to one another with hook-and-loop (Velcro) fasteners. However, Wardlaw lacks detail on the fastener construction. Petitioner asserted that Ferrante supplies this missing detail by disclosing a clamp-style hook-and-loop fastener for connecting panels, which explicitly teaches the claimed "male edge" (a tongue strip with fasteners on its front and rear sides) and a corresponding "female edge" (a panel groove with two flaps and fasteners on their inner surfaces).
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), seeking to implement Wardlaw’s system, would have looked to known techniques for securely attaching modular panels. Petitioner contended that a POSITA would combine Ferrante's specific tongue-and-groove clamping fastener with Wardlaw’s general enclosure system to provide an improved, more secure connection, a reason expressly stated in Ferrante.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involves the simple substitution of one known hook-and-loop fastener type (Ferrante’s) for the generic one in Wardlaw’s analogous system to achieve a predictable improvement in connection security.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Wardlaw, Ferrante, and Ballinger - Claims 1-12 are obvious over Wardlaw in view of Ferrante and Ballinger.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Wardlaw (Application # 2008/0282652), Ferrante (Patent 5,713,089), and Ballinger (Patent 3,715,843).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the Wardlaw and Ferrante combination to address the limitations of independent claim 5 and its dependents. Petitioner argued that while Wardlaw/Ferrante teach the enclosure and fastener type, Ballinger teaches the specific arrangement recited in claim 5: a single panel having both male and female connectors arranged on alternating edges (e.g., two opposite male edges and two opposite female edges). Ballinger discloses this exact configuration for modular, heat-resistant panels used to form a protective cover, and suggests using Velcro fasteners. The combination of the three references allegedly discloses every element of claims 1-12.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA building a multi-panel enclosure like Wardlaw's would seek to improve the ease and reliability of assembly. Petitioner argued that Ballinger provides the motivation by teaching that its alternating fastener arrangement ensures adjacent panels will always have opposing, mateable fastener types, allowing them to be "quickly and easily joined together." Applying Ballinger's known organizational principle to the Wardlaw/Ferrante panel system was presented as an obvious design choice to enhance modularity.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted success would be expected because implementing Ballinger's fastener layout on the panels of the Wardlaw/Ferrante combination is a predictable integration of known elements for their established purposes.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted alternative grounds 1A and 2A, which argued that claims 1-4 and 1-12, respectively, remain obvious even under a narrower claim construction where the type of fastener (i.e., hook vs. loop) must be consistent across certain surfaces. Petitioner contended this would be a simple and obvious design choice between predictable alternatives.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. However, it advanced two key positions on potential areas of dispute:
  • "First Portion" / "Second Portion": Petitioner’s primary argument assumed these terms do not require the fastener type (hook vs. loop) to be identical on different surfaces (e.g., the front and rear sides of a male edge). To preempt a contrary argument from the Patent Owner, Petitioner presented alternate grounds (1A and 2A) demonstrating obviousness even if such a requirement were read into the claims.
  • "Offset": For claims 6 and 7, which require engagement axes to be "offset," Petitioner argued that the term should be broadly construed to mean any non-linear alignment. Petitioner contended this is an inherent and expected result of assembling panels with flexible hook-and-loop fasteners in a field environment and that the patent provides no quantitative value for the offset, distinguishing it only from perfect "linear alignment."

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) would be inappropriate. The core argument was that the primary prior art reference, Wardlaw, was before the Examiner during prosecution but was never substantively considered or used in a rejection. Petitioner asserted that the Examiner materially erred by overlooking Wardlaw's teachings—specifically, a pressurized modular welding habitat with Velcro-connected panels—which are central to the challenged claims' patentability.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-12 of Patent 9,545,775 as unpatentable.