PTAB

IPR2025-01367

Albany Intl Corp v. Voith Patent GmbH

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Fabric for a Machine to Produce a Fiber Web and Method of Producing a Fiber Web
  • Brief Description: The ’388 patent relates to fabrics for papermaking machines, known as paper machine clothing (PMC). The invention is directed to a PMC comprising a flat-woven base material folded into a two-layer loop, to which one or more "sheet plies" are attached exclusively to the outside surface of the folded layers.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-15 are obvious over Ryan in view of Yook.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ryan (Application # 2014/0069549) and Yook (Patent 6,776,878).
  • Core Argument:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ryan discloses all elements of the base structure recited in claim 1: a flat-woven fabric that is folded to create a two-ply structure with seam loops at the folds and terminal ends located adjacent to one another under the bottom ply. Ryan, however, does not explicitly disclose adding "one or more sheet plies" to the outside of this base structure. Yook was asserted to teach the lamination of additional fabric layers onto the exterior of a base fabric to improve performance characteristics, such as increasing void volume and enhancing pressure uniformity, which are desirable in PMCs.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Yook's teaching of external lamination with Ryan's conventional base fabric to achieve the well-known and predictable benefits associated with laminated fabrics. Petitioner contended that this combination represents the mere application of a known technique (lamination) to a known product (Ryan's base fabric) to obtain a predictable improvement, consistent with the obviousness framework established in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have a high expectation of success. The method for joining the fabric layers described in Yook (needling with batt material) was a standard and widely used industry practice for manufacturing press fabrics. Furthermore, the base fabrics in both Ryan and Yook were argued to be structurally similar (folded, two-layer plain weave structures), making the proposed combination straightforward and its outcome predictable.

Ground 2: Claims 1-15 are obvious over Hawes in view of Crook.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hawes (Patent 7,473,336) and Crook (Patent 8,043,477).

  • Core Argument:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Hawes discloses a multi-layer fabric that meets most limitations of claim 1, including a folded base fabric with sheet plies ("laminate material") disposed exclusively on its outside surfaces. However, Hawes’ base fabric is described as being spiral-wound into an endless form, and therefore lacks the claimed "two terminal ends separated from one another in a machine direction." Crook was argued to supply this missing element, as it explicitly describes a flat-woven base material with distinct terminal ends that is folded over to form the two-ply structure with seam loops, identical to the base structure of the ’388 patent.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would substitute Crook's flat-woven base fabric for Hawes' spiral-wound base fabric. The petition argued that flat-weaving (with subsequent seaming) and spiral-winding were well-known, interchangeable alternatives for manufacturing PMCs. The motivation for this substitution would be to leverage the advantages of Crook's manufacturing method—which the ’388 patent itself acknowledges is simpler, faster, and cheaper—while still incorporating Hawes’ beneficial technique of applying external laminate layers.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued the proposed modification was a simple substitution of one known element for a known and recognized equivalent. The lamination process taught by Hawes (needling) is agnostic to how the base fabric is formed (flat-woven vs. spiral-wound), ensuring a high and reasonable expectation of success in creating the combined fabric.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations including Hawes-Crook-Yook, Hawes-Zehle, and Hawes-Zehle-Yook, which relied on similar substitution and combination rationales to argue that adding or substituting other known prior art elements would have been obvious to a POSITA.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-15 of Patent 9,982,388 as unpatentable.