Takeaway: A petitioner must foresee alternative claim constructions that may be adopted by the Board when preparing its petition.

In its Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail as to the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims (1, 3, 5, 11-15, 22, 24-27, and 34-37) of the ’602 Patent. Therefore, it denied the Petition. The ’602 Patent relates to an insert for providing heating, cooling, ventilation or a combination thereof to a seat of an automotive vehicle.

The Board began with claim construction, noting that the claims are construed in the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. The Board construed two terms, believing the rest of the terms did not need explicit construction.

The first term, “an outwardly extending annular flange wall,” was contended by Petitioner to include “a flange portion extending away from a surface of the insert.” However, the Board agreed with Patent Owner, that the term “outwardly extending flange wall” refers to a flange wall of the air mover, and should be construed as “extending outward away from the air mover,” rather than the surface of the insert. This construction was supported by claim 3, which depends from claim 1, and recites that “the outwardly extending annular flange wall of the air mover is connected to the rearward layer with an adhesive.” Thus, the Board stated that claim 3 clarifies any ambiguity in claim 1 regarding the recited flange wall being part of the air mover, not the insert.

Neither party proposed a construction for the second term, “an air mover . . . attached to an inner surface of the rearward layer at the at least one opening with an outwardly extending annular flange wall.” However, the Board found that this term should be construed in conjunction with the disputed term “an outwardly extending annular flange wall.” The Board determined that, interpreted in light of the specification, the term requires use of an outwardly-extending annular flange wall of the air mover to attach the air mover to an inner surface of the rearward layer at the at least one opening. This construction was supported by certain figures and language used in dependent claim 3.

The Board then turned to the contention that independent claims 1, 15, and 27 are either anticipated by, or obvious over, Knoll ’113. Petitioner contended that Knoll ’113 discloses the limitation “an air mover . . . attached to an inner surface of the rearward layer at the at least one opening with an outwardly extending annular flange wall,” by reciting that the air mover support 18 is integral with non-perforated side 14. The Board was not persuaded that such a disclosure discloses, or suggests, that air mover support 18 is “attached to an inner surface” of non-perforated side 14, much less that air mover support 18 is attached to an inner surface of non-perforated side 14 “at the at least one opening, as required in the independent claims. Further, Petitioner’s contention that the air mover of Knoll ’113 has an outwardly extending annular flange wall is was not adequate to meet the requirement in the claims that the outwardly-extending annular flange wall of the air mover is used to attach the air mover to an inner surface of the rearward layer at the at least one opening.

The Board noted that Petitioner’s other grounds of unpatentability also relied on Knoll ’113 in combination with other alleged prior art references. Petitioner did not contend that those other references remedy the deficiencies of Knoll ’113 discussed above, and thus, the Board determined that Petitioner had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its contention that claims 1, 3, 5, 11-15, 22, 24-27, and 34-37 would have been obvious over Knoll ’113 in combination with one or more of the other references.

IGB Automotive Ltd. and I.G. Bauerhin GmbH v. Gentherm Gmbh, IPR2014-00663
Paper 8: Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
Dated: September 26, 2014
Patent: 7,775,602 B2
Before: Josiah C. Cocks, Benjamin D. M. Wood, and Richard Rice
Written by: Rice
Related Proceedings: W.E.T. Automotive Systems Ltd. v. IGB Automotive Ltd., Case No. 2:13-cv-11536-AJT-PJK (E.D.Mich.); IPR2014-00661; IPR2014-00664; IPR2014-00667; and IPR2014-00668