CAO GROUP, INC.v.The Procter & Gamble Company

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2014

11099738 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2014)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 17
Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: November 26, 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

CAO GROUP, INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2014-00798
Patent 7,122,199 B2
____________

Before ERICA A. FRANKLIN, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108

IPR2014-00798
Patent 7,122,199 B2

2

I. INTRODUCTION
CAO Group, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Second Corrected Petition
(Paper 11, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 17–21, 23–26,
and 28–31 of U.S. Patent No. 7,122,199 (Ex. 1001, “the ’199 patent”)
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311‒319. The Procter & Gamble Company
(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 15, “Prelim. Resp.”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an
inter partes review may be authorized only if “the information presented in
the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a
reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Petitioner challenges claims 17–21, 23–26, and 28–31 of the ’199
patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a). Pet. 6. Upon consideration of
the Petition, we conclude the information presented does not demonstrate a
reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the
unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not
authorize an inter partes review to be instituted as to the ’199 patent as
discussed below.

A. Related Proceedings
The ’199 patent has been asserted in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio in The Procter & Gamble Company v. CAO
Group, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00337-TSB, and in The Procter & Gamble
Company v. Team Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 1:12-cv-00552-TSB, and is
the subject of now-terminated inter partes review proceeding IPR2013-
00450. Pet. 1–2. U.S. Patents 5,989,569 and 6,045,811 also are asserted in
IPR2014-00798
Patent 7,122,199 B2

3

The Procter & Gamble Company v. CAO Group, Inc. and are the subject of
contemporaneously filed inter partes review petitions IPR2014-00796 and
IPR2014-00797, respectively. Id.

B. The ’199 patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’199 patent, titled “Methods for Whitening Teeth,” is directed to
“applying a tooth bleaching delivery system to a plurality of adjacent teeth,
wherein the tooth bleaching delivery system includes a strip of material and
a tooth bleaching composition having a peroxide active.” Ex. 1001, Abst.

C. Illustrative Claim
Claim 17, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim among the
claims of the ’199 patent challenged in the Petition.
17. A method of bleaching a plurality of adjacent teeth,
the teeth having facial and lingual surfaces, comprising:
applying a tooth bleaching delivery system to a plurality of
adjacent teeth, wherein the tooth bleaching delivery
system comprises a strip of material and a tooth
bleaching composition having a peroxide active, wherein
applying the tooth bleaching system comprises:
a) applying a first portion of the strip of material and tooth
bleaching composition to the facial surfaces of the
plurality of adjacent teeth so that the tooth bleaching
composition contacts the facial surfaces of the plurality
of adjacent teeth;
b) folding a second portion of the strip of material and tooth
bleaching composition about the incisal edges of the
plurality of adjacent teeth;
c) applying the second portion of the strip and tooth bleaching
composition to at least a portion of the lingual surfaces of
one or more of the plurality of adjacent teeth, wherein the
IPR2014-00798
Patent 7,122,199 B2

4

tooth bleaching composition is adhesive during use and
wherein the tooth bleaching delivery system is applied to
the facial and lingual surfaces of the plurality of adjacent
teeth for a sufficient period of time for the peroxide
active to act upon the facial surfaces of the plurality of
adjacent teeth; and wherein 12(a) to 12(c) are repeated
for about 7 days.

D. The Prior Art
Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
Reference Patent Number Date Exhibit
Montgomery US 5,922,307 July 13, 1999 1008
Shapiro US 5,462,067 Oct. 31, 1995 1006
Gaglio US 5,326,685 July 5, 1994 1005
Curtis US 5,310,563 May 10, 1994 1004
Fischer US 5,098,303 Mar. 24, 1992 1009
Hoef US 3,416,527 Dec. 17, 1968 1003
Gallopo WO 95/17158 June 29, 1995 1007

E. The Asserted Grounds
Petitioner challenges claims 17–21, 23–26, and 28–31 of the ’199
patent on the following grounds (Pet. 6):
IPR2014-00798
Patent 7,122,199 B2

5

Claims Challenged Basis Reference(s)
17, 18, 21, 26, 28–31 § 102(b) Gaglio
17–21, 23–26, 28–31 § 103(a) Gaglio, Shapiro, Gallopo,
Montgomery, Fischer
1

17, 20, 21, 26, 28–31 § 102(b) Hoef
17–21, 23–26, 28–31 § 103(a) Hoef, Shapiro, Gallopo,
Montgomery, and Fischer
17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28–31 § 102(b) Curtis
17–21, 23–26, 28–31 § 103(a) Curtis, Shapiro, Gallopo,
Montgomery, Fischer

F. Claim Interpretation
As a first step in our analysis, we determine the meaning of the
claims, for purposes of this decision, using the “broadest reasonable
construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [they]
appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, claim terms “are . . .
given their ordinary and customary meaning,” as would be understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)).
Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification
with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Petitioner proposes constructions for the claim terms “strip of
material” and “about 7 days.” Pet. 3–5. Petitioner contends that the term
“strip of material” means “a flat substance that has a shape for allowing

1
We understand this ground to include the Shapiro reference based on the
inclusion of Shapiro in the headings and accompanying claim chart. Pet.
13–21.
IPR2014-00798
Patent 7,122,199 B2

6

coverage of tips of some front teeth without covering the tips of the two
canine teeth and that is designed to conform to the shape of the teeth, fitting
by drape rather than permanent deformation to the shape of the teeth” (id. at
3). The proposed construction for the claim term “about 7 days” is “daily
for at least 7 consecutive calendar days” (id. at 4) based on their usage in the
’199 patent specification and the Patent Owner’s Response in IPR2013-
00450.
Patent Owner asserts that the Petition provides no reason why the
terms require a claim construction and no reason for departing from the plain
and ordinary meaning of the terms. Prelim. Resp. 17. Patent Owner further
argues that Petitioner’s construction of “strip of material” would narrow the
term to a preferred embodiment because Figure 1 of the specification
illustrates another embodiment that covers the tips of canine teeth. Id. at 20.
Based on our review of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we
conclude that, for the purposes of this decision, neither claim term requires
an express claim construction.

II. DISCUSSION
We turn now to Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability and
Patent Owner’s arguments in its Preliminary Response to determine whether
Petitioner has met the standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).

A. Grounds Based on Gaglio (Ex. 1005)
1. Anticipation of Claims 17, 18, 21, 26, and 28–31 by Gaglio
Based on our review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence
in light of the arguments presented by Patent Owner, we are not persuaded
IPR2014-00798
Patent 7,122,199 B2

7

that Petitioner has shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would
prevail in its anticipation challenge to claims 17, 18, 21, 26, and 28–31
based on Gaglio.
Petitioner asserts that Gaglio discloses every element of claims 17, 18,
21, 26, and 28–31 expressly or inherently. Pet. 8.
2
The Petition quotes
claim 17 of the ’199 patent (id. at 7), quotes the abstract of Gaglio (id. at 7–
8), and provides a claim chart that does not include a citation to Gaglio for
claims 17 (the second wherein clause), 28, 30, and 31 (id. at 9–13).
Regarding claim 17, and specifically clause (b), Petitioner contends that
Gaglio recognized that it was known to apply bleaching gel to the front and
back of teeth; therefore, if desired to be applied to the front and back of
teeth, Gaglio’s strip “would be folded about the incisal edges of the teeth.”
Id. at 8–9.
Patent Owner contends that the Petitioner has not established
anticipation of every element of the claims because Petitioner does not
adequately explain how Gaglio discloses either the “folding . . . about the
incisal edges” or the “adhesive during use” limitations required by
independent claim 17. Prelim. Resp. 32–35. We agree.
The Petition does not explain why Gaglio’s recognition of prior art
tooth whitening systems that teach applying a bleaching composition to the
front and back of teeth using a molded trough necessarily discloses folding
of a strip of material about the incisal edges of teeth. Petitioner argues that
if both the back and front of the teeth were to be covered using Gaglio’s
invention, it would be accomplished by folding over a single strip of

2
We understand the reference to “the ‘811 Patent” to be a typographical
error referring to the ’199 patent based on the heading of the section in
which it appears.
IPR2014-00798
Patent 7,122,199 B2

8

material with bleaching composition. Pet. 15. Petitioner’s argument is not
persuasive because it does not explain why the claimed method of folding
necessarily would be used rather than, for example, using a pre-formed
trough shape or applying separate strips for the front and back, so as to
anticipate the claim. Therefore Petitioner’s argument that Gaglio teaches
“folding . . . about the incisal edges” is not persuasive.
The Petition also does not explain why Gaglio’s disclosure that its
system “can be worn for prolonged periods” (Pet. 11 (quoting Ex. 1005, col.
5, ll. 16–24)) means that “the tooth bleaching composition is adhesive during
use” as required by claim 17. Petitioner has not explained adequately how
the tooth bleaching composition of Gaglio is disclosed, expressly or
inherently, as being adhesive during use.
For at least these reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown a
reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its anticipation challenge to claims 17,
18, 21, 26, and 28–31 of the ’199 patent based on Gaglio.
2. Obviousness over Gaglio, Shapiro, Gallopo, Montgomery, Fischer
Petitioner challenges claims 17–21, 23–26, and 28–31 as obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gaglio, Shapiro, Gallopo, Montgomery, and
Fischer. Pet. 13‒21. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the combination
teaches or suggests all of the elements of claims 17–21, 23–26, and 28–31.
Id. at 15.
In support of this position, the Petition quotes claim 17 as
representative (id. at 13–14), quotes from the abstract of Gaglio (id. at 14–
15), provides a claim chart with citations to Gaglio, Shapiro, Gallopo, and
Montgomery for the elements of independent claim 17, and argues the strip
of Gaglio “would be folded about the incisal edges of the teeth” (id. at 15)
IPR2014-00798
Patent 7,122,199 B2

9

and that “seven days of repetition is inherent in the art . . . or is at least
obvious to achieve a desired result” (id. at 15–16). In the claim chart,
Petitioner further cites to Figures 7 and 8 of Gaglio as illustrating that the gel
is the only thing that holds the pad on the tooth (id. at 19), Shapiro for
teaching a strip placed on the front and drawn up and around to the back of
the teeth (id. at 18), and the bleaching regimens of Gallopo and Montgomery
over “one-and-a-half to eight days” and “twice a day for one week,”
respectively (id. at 19).
Patent Owner contends that Figures 7 and 8 of Gaglio do not indicate
whether it is the gel or something else that holds the pad to the tooth because
the gel is saturated into the dispensing material in Figure 7 and dispersed
through the dispensing material in Figure 8. Prelim. Resp. 36–37. Patent
Owner also contends that no articulated reasoning for combining Gaglio
with Shapiro has been provided in the Petition, that Shapiro is non-
analogous art and incompatible with Gaglio because it does not touch the
teeth, and that Shapiro neither teaches nor is relied upon as teaching the
limitation “adhesive during use” required by claim 17 of the ’199 patent. Id.
at 37–39.
Petitioner’s obviousness argument does not demonstrate a reasonable
likelihood of success because it does not provide support or sufficient
explanation for either making modifications to Gaglio or combining Gaglio
with Shapiro to meet the limitation in claim 17 “folding a . . . portion of the
strip of material . . . about the incisal edges of . . . adjacent teeth.” Petitioner
provides no discussion, let alone support, for why one of ordinary skill in the
art would fold the bleaching system of Gaglio over the incisal edges of
adjacent teeth. At best, Petitioner identifies other prior art systems that exist
IPR2014-00798
Patent 7,122,199 B2

10

on both sides of a tooth, but does not explain why those prior art systems
would make obvious the modification of Gaglio’s system as claimed in
claim 17 by folding a portion of Gaglio’s strip and tooth bleaching
composition over the incisal edges of the teeth.
Petitioner also does not adequately explain why one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand Gaglio’s tooth bleaching composition to be
adhesive during use. Petitioner relies on Figures 7 and 8 of Gaglio, which
show gel 10 adjacent to pad 28 and a tooth, as “illustrat[ing] the gel 10 as
[the] only thing that apparently holds the pad 28 to the tooth.” Pet. 19. As
Patent Owner points out, the gel in Gaglio is not necessarily adhering the
pad to the tooth because it is saturated into the dispensing material 32 in
Figure 7 (Ex. 1005, col. 6, ll. 7–9) and slowly releasing from a hollow
pocket 38 in Figure 8 (id. at col. 6, ll. 9–16). Although Gaglio has some of
the elements required by claim 17, the Petition is insufficient to demonstrate
a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner can support the obviousness of the
gaps between the prior art and the claim.
For these reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown a
reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge to claims
17–21, 23–26, and 28–31 of the ’199 patent based on the combination of
Gaglio, Shapiro, Gallopo, Montgomery, and Fischer.

B. Grounds Based on Hoef (Ex. 1003)
1. Anticipation of Claims 17, 20, 21, 26, and 28–31 by Hoef
Petitioner challenges claims 17, 20, 21, 26, and 28–31 as anticipated
by Hoef. Pet. 21‒28.
IPR2014-00798
Patent 7,122,199 B2

11

Petitioner contends that the delivery system of Hoef uses a tray that is
a flat strip deformed to fit the dental arch, and a medicament in liquid or gel
form dispensed into the tray prior to use. Id. at 23. Hoef’s tray is pressed
against both sides of a patient’s teeth and gums and, for this reason, Hoef is
said to teach “applying a first portion of the strip of material . . . to the facial
surfaces of . . . adjacent teeth” as recited in clause (a) of independent
claim 17 (id.) as well as the folding a second portion step of clause (b) and
applying a second portion to the lingual surfaces of clause (c) (id. at 26).
Regarding the tooth bleaching composition being “adhesive during use” as
required by claim 17 in step (c), Petitioner argues that “a liquid or a gel
would inherently, or at least obviously, be adhesive to some degree.” Id. at
23. Regarding the claim requirement “repeated for about 7 days,” Petitioner
asserts that “seven days of repetition is inherent in achieving a desired result
for a given composition, or is at least obvious to achieve a desired result.”
Id. at 24.
Based on our review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence
in light of the arguments presented by Patent Owner, we are not persuaded
that Petitioner has shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would
prevail in its challenge to claims 17, 20, 21, 26, and 28–31 as anticipated by
Hoef.
Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has not established anticipation
of every element of claim 17 because the Petition does not explain how a
single statement that Hoef’s device is pressed around both sides of a
patient’s teeth discloses all three steps (a) through (c). Prelim. Resp. 40.
Patent Owner contends that Hoef’s tray device, which is pre-formed outside
of the mouth, cannot accomplish the steps of being applied to the front
IPR2014-00798
Patent 7,122,199 B2

12

surfaces of the teeth, then folded over the incisal edges of the teeth, then
applied to the back surfaces of the teeth. Id. at 41. Patent Owner further
contends that pressing of the Hoef device is not to apply the device to any
surface of the teeth, but, rather, to force the medicament around the teeth
while the patient’s mouth remains closed during use to keep the tray in
position. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll. 55–62). In addition, Patent Owner
contends that this description in Hoef also implies the substance in Hoef “is
not adhesive to a relevant degree” and therefore is not “adhesive during use”
either inherently or obviously. Id. at 44.
For purposes of this decision, we need not determine whether
claim 17 requires a particular sequence or order of steps, i.e. whether folding
must occur after applying a first section and before a second section of the
strip of material as Patent Owner contends. Regardless of the order in which
the steps may be performed, Petitioner has not explained sufficiently in the
Petition how Hoef teaches every element of independent claim 17.
The Petitioner does not explain how forming Hoef’s tray in a mold
and inserting Hoef’s tray with medicament in a patient’s mouth meets the
steps of “applying a first portion of the strip . . . , folding a second portion of
the strip . . . , and applying the second portion of the strip,” as required by
steps (a) through (c) of independent claim 17. As Patent Owner points out,
Hoef’s molded tray containing medicament is kept in position by keeping
the mouth closed, a disclosure which does not indicate that the strip of
material is applied or that the substance is tacky or adhesive. Prelim. Resp.
41, 44 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll. 57–62).
Petitioner’s assertion that the “adhesive during use” requirement of
claim 17 is met inherently by Hoef is not consistent with the teachings in
IPR2014-00798
Patent 7,122,199 B2

13

Hoef. Absent some basis for Petitioner’s assertion, we conclude that
Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in its
challenge to claims 17, 20, 21, 26, and 28–31 as anticipated by Hoef.
2. Obviousness over Hoef, Shapiro, Gallopo, Montgomery, Fischer
Petitioner challenges claims 17–21, 23–26, and 28–31 as obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hoef, Shapiro, Gallopo, Montgomery, and
Fischer. Pet. 28‒37.
Petitioner contends that Hoef teaches all of the elements of
independent claim 17 for the same reasons Hoef is asserted to anticipate
claim 17 of the ’199 patent. Id. at 30–31. In addition, Petitioner asserts that
Gallopo teaches using a peroxide bleaching composition over a range of
one-and-a-half days to eight days, making the required “about 7 days” “an
obvious selection given a particular peroxide source and concentration.” Id.
at 31. In the claim chart, Petitioner alternatively cites the whitening
experiment repeated twice a day for one week disclosed by Montgomery in
place of Gallopo. Id. at 34–35. No additional prior art references are relied
upon to support the obviousness challenge based on Hoef.
Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s obviousness argument based
on Hoef is conclusory because it lacks support, explanation, and citation to
evidence. Prelim. Resp. 44. We agree.
Petitioner does not explain how the disclosures in Hoef would teach
or suggest the steps of applying a first section of a strip to the facial surfaces
of adjacent teeth, folding a second section of the strip over the incisal edges
of the teeth, and applying the second section of the strip to the lingual
surface. Petitioner argues that the step of applying a first portion of the strip
to the facial surfaces of the teeth is achieved in Hoef because the device in
IPR2014-00798
Patent 7,122,199 B2

14

Hoef is “pressed around both sides of the patient’s teeth and gums.” Pet. 30
(quoting Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll. 54–56). According to Petitioner, pressing
“includes applying a first portion of the strip and the hydrogen peroxide
bleaching composition thereon to the facial surfaces of the teeth.” Id.
Petitioner provides no explanation or support for this conclusion. Nor does
Petitioner explain how the additional steps of clauses (b) and (c) in claim 17
are also included in Hoef’s pressing step. See id. at 33–34 (citing same
passage of Hoef in claim chart for clauses (a) through (c) in claim 17).
Based on our review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence,
we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown that there is a reasonable
likelihood that it would prevail in its challenge to claims 17–21, 23–26, and
28–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hoef, Shapiro, Gallopo, Montgomery,
and Fischer.

C. Grounds Based on Curtis (Ex. 1004)
1. Anticipation of Claims 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28–31
Petitioner challenges claims 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28–31 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Curtis. Pet. 37‒43.
Based on our review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence
in light of the arguments presented by Patent Owner, we are not persuaded
that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in its
anticipation challenge to claims 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, and 28–31 based
on Curtis.
Petitioner asserts that “Curtis expressly or inherently discloses each
and every element of each of claims 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, and 28–31 of
the ’199 Patent.” Pet. 39. As to claim 17 (id. at 37), Petitioner
IPR2014-00798
Patent 7,122,199 B2

15

acknowledges that the claimed time period for repeating the method steps is
not disclosed explicitly in Curtis, but contends the limitation “is inherent in
achieving a desired result for a given composition” (id. at 39).
Regarding the other limitations of claim 17, Petitioner provides
citations to Curtis in a claim chart. For the steps in clauses (b) and (c) of
claim 17, Petitioner states “See above.” Id. at 40–41. Immediately above in
the table next to clause (a), Petitioner states “[a]s noted above, the use of
‘Carbamide H2O2 Fluoride’ (col. 5, line 59) discloses fluoride combined
with a whitener.” Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 5, l. 59).
Petitioner provides no basis for establishing that Curtis teaches each
of the process steps recited in independent claim 17. Petitioner’s citation in
the claim chart to components in Curtis rather than a process does not
persuade us of a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in its challenge
to the method of claim 17 and dependent claims 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28–
31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Curtis.
2. Obviousness over Curtis, Shapiro, Gallopo, Montgomery, Fischer
Petitioner challenges claims 17–21, 23–26, and 28–31 as obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Curtis, Shapiro, Gallopo, Montgomery, and
Fischer. Pet. 43‒50.
Petitioner contends that all of the claim limitations are taught or
suggested by Curtis, Shapiro, Gallopo, Montgomery, and Fischer. Id. at 45.
Petitioner’s argument consists of the quoted abstract from the Curtis
reference, the assertion that the period “about 7 days” in claim 17 is inherent
in achieving a desired result, and the assertion that the shade guide
improvement required by claim 31 would be inherent from Curtis’s use of
the same bleaching composition. Id. at 44–45. The Petition does not
IPR2014-00798
Patent 7,122,199 B2

16

explain how the references are to be applied to the independent claims apart
from the claim chart provided.
Based on the claim chart, Petitioner relies on the same position,
discussed above, that Curtis teaches or suggests all of the limitations in
independent claim 17. Pet. 45–50 (claim chart). Petitioner relies solely on
the citation to Curtis’s use of carbamide H2O2 fluoride as support for Curtis
teaching the process steps of clauses (a) through (c) in claim 17 (id. at 46–
47). For the same reasons discussed above with respect to Petitioner’s
anticipation challenge to claim 17 by Curtis, we are not persuaded that the
process steps required by claim 17 are reasonably likely to be obvious over
the dental composition components cited from Curtis. Petitioner provides no
explanation for why the dental composition taught by Curtis teaches or
suggests the method of independent claim 17 and claims 18–21, 23–26, and
28–31, which depend from and therefore require the limitations of claim 17.
Based on our review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence,
we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown that there is a reasonable
likelihood that it would prevail in its challenge to claims 17–21, 23–26, and
28–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Curtis, Shapiro, Gallopo,
Montgomery, and Fischer.

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we do not institute an inter partes review
of any of the asserted grounds as to any of the challenged claims of the ’199
patent.

IPR2014-00798
Patent 7,122,199 B2

17

IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is:
ORDERED that the Petition is DENIED.
IPR2014-00798
Patent 7,122,199 B2

18

PETITIONER:

Edgar R. Cataxinos
J. Jeffrey Gunn
TRASKBRITT, P.C.
ercataxinos@traskbritt.com
jgunn@traskbritt.com

PATENT OWNER:

David M. Maiorana
John V. Biernacki
Kenneth S. Luchesi
JONES DAY
dmaiorana@jonesday.com
jvbiernacki@jonesday.com
kluchesi@jonesday.com

Amanda T. Barry
Amy M. Foust
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
barry.at@pg.com
foust.am@pg.com