Lenroc Co.v.Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 24, 2014

11787477 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2014)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper12
Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: July 24, 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
LENROC COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
ENVIRO TECH CHEMICAL SERVICES, INC.,
Patent Owner.
_______________

Case IPR2014-00382
Patent 7,728,132 B2
_______________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
KRISTINA M. KALAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

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

IPR2014-00382
Patent 7,728,132 B2

2

I. INTRODUCTION
On January 27, 2014, Lenroc Company (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
(Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1-12 (the “challenged
claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,728,132 (Ex. 1001, “the ’132 patent”). 35 U.S.C.
§§ 311-319. Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a
Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted
“unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration
of the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we determine Petitioner
has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the
unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, the Petition
is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) for the reasons that follow.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Related Matters
Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner indicates it is aware of another judicial
or administrative matter that would affect, or be affected by, a decision in this
proceeding. Pet. 1; see generally Prelim. Resp.
B. The ’132 Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’132 patent relates to methods for preparing a composition for use in
stabilizing chlorinated water to sunlight decomposition. Ex. 1001, Abstract. At
the time of the invention, it was known in the art that cyanuric acid is an effective
chlorine stabilizer, id. at 1:33-36, and that, due to its more neutral pH,
monosodium cyanurate is preferred over cyanuric acid for UV stabilization in
outdoor chlorinated pools and fountains, id.at 2:4-7. According to the ’132 patent,
IPR2014-00382
Patent 7,728,132 B2

3

at the time of the invention, it was known in the art to treat chlorinated water with
both powder and slurry forms of monosodium cyanurate. See generally id. at 2:8-
3:14. The ’132 patent describes known methods of producing commercial
quantities of monosodium cyanurate powder as inefficient and costly. Id. at 2:10-
24. Monosodium cyanurate slurries produced by known methods, such as the
method disclosed in Jany, are described as difficult to use due to their high
viscosity and tendency to dewater (separate) in a container. Ex. 1001, 2:50-3:22.
The inventive methods of the ’132 patent are said to overcome the
aforementioned drawbacks of the prior art methods and products produced thereby.
Id. at 3:27-40. The ’132 patent describes methods for preparing both slurry and
dry, solid monoalkali metal cyanurate materials. Id. at 6:43-10:3. The slurry and
dry, solid materials are prepared from monoalkali metal cyanurate wetcakes, made
by blending:
(1) monoalkali metal base with a slurry made of water and either cyanuric
acid wetcake or dry, virgin cyanuric acid, id. at 4:48-55;
(2) monoalkali metal base, preferably in a dry, solid form, with cyanuric acid
wetcake, id. at 6:60-63, 9:8-9; or
(3) dry, virgin cyanuric acid with
(a) an aqueous solution of a monoalkali metal base, id. at 7:5-6, 9:19-
20, or
(b) sufficient water “so that it can be processed as if it were cyanuric
acid wetcake,” and a monoalkali metal base, preferably in a dry, solid form,
id. at 7:3-5, 9:17-19.
A slurry of monoalkali metal cyanurate is prepared by introducing the monoalkali
metal cyanurate wetcake to water under high speed mixing or homogenization. Id.
at 5:23-25, 7:21-23. A dry, solid monoalkali metal cyanurate is prepared by drying
IPR2014-00382
Patent 7,728,132 B2

4

the monoalkali metal cyanurate wetcake using any suitable means such as “a
fluidized bed dryer, a flash dryer, a double-cone vacuum tumble dryer, a rotating
circular tray dryer . . . , and an atmospheric tray dryer.” Id. at 9:35-39.
C. Illustrative Claims
Challenged claims 1-5 and 10 recite “method[s] for preparing a slurry of a
monoalkali metal cyanurate.” Ex. 1001, claims 1 and 10. Challenged claim 6
depends from claim 1, and recites “[a] monoalkali metal cyanurate slurry prepared
according to the method of claim 1.” Id. at claim 6. Challenged claims 7-9, 11,
and 12 recite “method[s] for preparing a dry, solid monoalkali metal cyanurate.”
Id. at claims 7, 11, and 12.
Claims 1 and 11, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for preparing a slurry of a monoalkali metal cyanurate,
comprising:
(a) Blending cyanuric acid wetcake with a monoalkali metal base to form a
wetcake of a monoalkali metal cyanurate without dispersing the cyanuric acid
wetcake in an aqueous medium prior to blending; and
(b) Introducing said monoalkali metal cyanurate wetcake to water, under
high speed mixing, to form a slurry of a monoalkali metal cyanurate having a
viscosity of less than 131 centiStokes, wherein said water contains a suspension
agent in an amount sufficient to increase its viscosity.
11. A method for preparing a dry, solid monoalkali metal cyanurate,
comprising:
(a) Forming a wetcake of monoalkali metal cyanurate by blending cyanuric
acid or cyanuric acid wetcake with a monoalkali metal base; and
(b) Drying the formed wetcake of monoalkali metal cyanurate.
D. Evidence Relied Upon
Petitioner relies upon the following references, as well as the Declaration of
Kurt F. Stephan, executed January 24, 2014 (Ex. 1006, “Stephan Declaration”):
IPR2014-00382
Patent 7,728,132 B2

5

References Patents/Printed Publications Exhibit
Stephan U.S. Patent No. 8,067,587 B2 1002
Jany

U.S. Patent No. 6,207,177 B1 1004
Doonan U.S. Patent No. 4,233,444 1005

E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
Petitioner challenges the patentability of the ’132 patent claims based on the
following grounds:
References Basis Claims challenged
Stephan § 102(e) 7 and 9-12
Stephan and Jany § 103(a) 10
Stephan and Doonan § 103(a) 11 and 12
Stephan, Doonan, and
Jany
§ 103(a) 1-9

III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
A. Legal Standard
Claims of an unexpired patent are interpreted using the broadest reasonable
construction in light of the specification of the patent. See Office Patent Trial
Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012); 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.100(b). We determine that, for purposes of this Decision, the only claim
language requiring express construction is the term “wetcake,” recited in each of
the challenged independent claims: 1, 7, and 10-12.
IPR2014-00382
Patent 7,728,132 B2

6

B. Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s Proposed Constructions for the Term
“Wetcake”
Petitioner does not offer a construction for the claim term “wetcake,” per se,
but proposes constructions for the phrases “cyanuric acid wetcake” and “wetcake
of monoalkali metal cyanurate.”1 Pet. 3-4. Petitioner contends the phrase
“cyanuric acid wetcake,” as used in the challenged claims, “means a composition
comprising cyanuric acid and water, where the amount of water in the composition
is about 20-40% by weight.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:47-48, 6:60-62, 9:6-8; Ex.
1006, 3, ¶ 7a). Petitioner contends the phrase “wetcake of monoalkali metal
cyanurate” means “a composition comprising monoalkali metal cyanurate and
water, where the composition contains about 40-90% monoalkali metal cyanurate
by weight.” Id. at 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:3-8; Ex. 1006, 3, ¶ 7b).
Patent Owner contends “[t]he term ‘wetcake’ means a wet solid that is not a
dry solid.” Prelim. Resp. 4. Patent Owner provides numerous citations to the ’132
patent, see id. at 4-5, in support of its argument that the Specification “clearly
distinguish[es] between the physical state of a ‘wetcake’ and the physical state of a
‘dry solid’,” id. at 5. Patent Owner contends independent claims 7, 11, and 12
distinguish between the physical state of a wetcake and the physical state of a dry
solid, requiring a step of drying a monoalkali metal cyanurate wetcake to prepare a
“‘dry solid’ monoalkali metal cyanurate.” Id.

1Petitioner and Patent Owner do not dispute that the phrases “wetcake of
monoalkali metal cyanurate” and “monoalkali metal cyanurate wetcake” are used
interchangeably in the ’132 patent Specification, and agree these phrases should be
construed identically. Pet. 4; Prelim. Resp. 6. We agree and, for convenience, we
use the phrase “wetcake of monoalkali metal cyanurate” throughout our decision to
refer to both terms.
IPR2014-00382
Patent 7,728,132 B2

7

Patent Owner argues Petitioner’s proposed constructions for the phrases
“cyanuric acid wetcake” and “wetcake of monoalkali metal cyanurate” fail to
acknowledge that a wetcake is a wet solid, which is physically different from a dry
solid. Id. at 6-7. Patent Owner contends these phrases mean, respectively, “a wet
solid, not a dry solid, of cyanuric acid and water” and “a wet solid, not a dry solid,
of a monoalkali metal cyanurate and water.” Id. at 5-6.
C. The ’132 Patent Claims
Challenged independent claims 1, 7, and 10-12 recite blending “cyanuric
acid wetcake”2 with a monoalkali metal base to form “a wetcake of monoalkali
metal cyanurate.” Ex. 1001, 12:39-14:22. Challenged claims 7, 11, and 12 recite
“method[s] for preparing a dry, solid monoalkali metal cyanurate” and further
require a step of “[d]rying said monoalkali metal cyanurate wetcake.” Id. at 13:3-
9, 14:4-22. The term “wetcake” is not used in the dependent claims. Id. at 12:51-
13:19 (claims 2-6, 8, and 9). The challenged claims do not use other terms such as
“cake” or “semi-dry solid cake,” see infra pp. 7-8, and do not explicitly recite
solids or water contents of the wetcakes.
D. The ’132 Patent Specification
The ’132 patent does not explicitly define the term “wetcake.” See generally
Ex. 1001. The ’132 patent uses the terms “wetcake” and “cake” to describe
monoalkali metal cyanurate material used to prepare a dry, solid monoalkali metal
cyanurate. Id. at 8:58-9:34. The “dry solid monoalkali metal cyanurate,” id. at
8:60-61, is prepared by “[d]rying the monoalkali metal cyanurate wetcake” in
suitable drying equipment, such as a fluidized bed dryer or flash dryer, id. at 9:35-
39.

2 Claims 10-12 recite “cyanuric acid or cyanuric acid wetcake.”
IPR2014-00382
Patent 7,728,132 B2

8

The ’132 patent also uses the terms “wetcake” and “cake” to describe
monoalkali metal cyanurate material used to prepare slurries of monoalkali metal
cyanurate. Id. at 3:51-65, 4:32-5:8, 6:46-7:20. In one embodiment, cyanuric acid
and monoalkali metal base are dry-blended to form a “semi-dry solid cake” of
monoalkali metal cyanurate. Id. at 3:53-54, 60-61. In another embodiment,
monoalkali metal base is added to a slurry of cyanuric acid to form monoalkali
metal cyanurate. Id. at 4:48-55. A “‘wetcake’ contain[ing] about 40-90% solid
monoalkali metal cyanurate by weight” is then separated from the slurry. Id. at
5:3-4, 7-8 (internal quotation added).
The ’132 patent also uses the term “wetcake” to describe cyanuric acid
material used in forming the above-described monoalkali metal cyanurate
wetcakes.
The cyanuric acid may be dry, virgin material or it may be a by-
product from [a process] using trichloroisocyanuric acid or sodium
dichloroisocyanurate as a chemical reactant. When by-product
material is used, it is generally available as a water-washed wetcake
separated from the reaction liquors by any conventional solid-liquid
separation technique, e.g., centrifugation, filtration, using a
hydrocyclone, or by gravitational sedimentation. The amount of water
in the wetcake is usually in the range of about 20-40% by weight.
Id. at 4:40-48, 6:53-62, 8:66-9:8 (emphasis added). The ’132 patent also describes
adding water to the dry virgin cyanuric acid so that it may be “processed as if it
were cyanuric acid wetcake.” Id. at 7:3-5, 9:16-18.
E. The Prior Art
“In construing claims, we look first to the intrinsic evidence of record.” Tate
Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Res., Inc., 279 F.3d 1357, 1371 n.4
(Fed. Cir. 2002). “[P]rior art cited in a patent or cited in the prosecution history of
the patent constitutes intrinsic evidence.” Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663
IPR2014-00382
Patent 7,728,132 B2

9

F.3d 1221, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Kumar v. Ovonic Battery Co., 351 F.3d
1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
During prosecution of the ’132 patent, the Examiner considered Doonan and
Jany. Ex. 1001, page 1, “References Cited.” In the “Description of the Related
Art” section, id. at 1:14-3:23, the ’132 patent describes the process of U.S. Patent
No. 4,432,959, issued to Shimamura et al. on Feb. 21, 1984 (hereinafter
“Shimamura”), Ex. 1001, 2:8-24, noting it is “an alternative [existing] process for
producing the powder form of monosodium cyanurate,” id. at 2:15-16.
Doonan discloses “[c]yanuric acid [for use in the manufacture of monoalkali
metal cyanurates] is commercially available in powder (e.g. -100 to +300 mesh) or
granular (e.g. - 20 to + 100 mesh) forms.” Ex. 1005, 1:66-68. Doonan states that
“cakes of cyanuric acid” may also be used, e.g., “a wet cake of cyanuric acid
recovered from a filter or centrifuge . . . where the cake contains from about 65 to
about 99 and preferably from about 70 to about 85 percent by weight of cyanuric
acid.” Id. at 2:1, 9-12.
Jany discloses cyanuric acid for use in swimming pool water “is typically in
a dry (containing 6 wt % or less water), granulated form.” Ex. 1004, 1:17-18.
Jany discloses that slurries of pure cyanuric acid which have not been treated with
caustic “tend to settle and form hard cakes that are typically difficult to resuspend.”
Id. at 1:28-29.
Shimamura describes “a process of producing sodium cyanurate in the form
of dry powder,” Shimamura 1:36-37,
by reacting iso cyanuric acid in powder form with sodium carbonate
or sodium hydrogencarbonate in powder form, or with a mixture
thereof, wherein at least one of said starting materials in powder form
is a hydrate, or both of said starting materials are anhydrates, in which
case water is added to the anhydrates in an amount sufficient to
IPR2014-00382
Patent 7,728,132 B2

10

produce a hydrate at room temperature, and wherein the starting
materials are mixed and kneaded together in powder form while the
materials are maintained at a temperature at which water may be
liberated from said hydrate,
id. at 1:41-51. According to Shimamura, “[s]odium cyanurate that is obtained by
the process according to the invention has rich fluidity and is free from any cakes.
Thus, it can be used in the form of powder.” Id. at 2:39-42.
F. Stephan Declaration (Ex. 1006)
Petitioner cites to the Stephan Declaration (Ex. 1006) in support of its
proposed claim construction. See Pet. 3-4. Declarant testifies that the term
“cyanuric acid wetcake,” as used in the ’132 patent, “means a composition
comprising cyanuric acid and water, where the amount of water in the composition
is about 20-40% by weight. ’132 Patent at 4:47-48, 6:60-62; 9:6-8.” Ex. 1006, 3,
¶ 7a. Declarant testifies that “Stephan discloses blending cyanuric acid having ‘a
moisture content of 20% or less, preferably 5% or less,’” i.e., a cyanuric acid
wetcake, “with a monoalkali metal base . . . to form a wetcake of monoalkali metal
cyanurate.” Id. at 10, ¶¶ 11a, b. Declarant further testifies that the terms
“monoalkali metal cyanurate wetcake,” “wetcake of monoalkali metal cyanurate,”
and “wetcake of a monoalkali metal cyanurate,” as used in the ’132 patent, “mean
a composition comprising monoalkali metal cyanurate and water, where the
composition contains about 40-90% monoalkali metal cyanurate by weight.” Id. at
3, ¶ 7b. Declarant testifies that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention of the ’132 Patent would have recognized that Stephan’s disclosure of
‘monosodium cyanurate monohydrate’ as a reaction product (Stephan at 4:1-3)
constitutes a wetcake of monoalkali metal cyanurate as that term is used in the
’132 Patent.” Id. at 10-11, ¶ 11c (determining, through calculation, that Stephan’s
IPR2014-00382
Patent 7,728,132 B2

11

monosodium cyanurate monohydrate contains 89.35% monoalkali metal cyanurate
and 10.65% water).
G. Analysis
Based on our review of the Specification and related prior art, we agree with
Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
have understood that a wetcake is a wet solid, which physically differs from a dry
solid. See Ex. 1001, claims 7, 11, and 12 (requiring a step of drying monoalkali
metal cyanurate wetcake to produce a dry solid); Ex. 1001, 7:3-5, 9:16-18 (“[w]hen
the cyanuric acid is dry, virgin material, sufficient water may be added so that it
can be processed as if it were cyanuric acid wetcake”), id. at 8:60-61, 9:35-39
(describing preparation of a dry solid monoalkali metal cyanurate by drying a
monoalkali metal cyanurate wetcake); Ex. 1005, 1:66-68, 2:1, 9-12 (disclosing
cyanuric acid is commercially available in powder and granular forms, or in
cake/wetcake form); Ex. 1004, 1:17-20, 28-29 (disclosing cyanuric acid is typically
available in dry, granulated form and that cyanuric acid in slurry form may settle
and form hard cakes); Shimamura 2:39-42 (“Sodium cyanurate that is obtained by
the process according to the invention has rich fluidity and is free from any cakes.
Thus, it can be used in the form of powder.”). One of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that a wetcake and a powder may have the same moisture
content, yet differ physically in that the particles of a wetcake are capable of
adhering together to form a cake, while the particles of a powder do not adhere to
each other, but are free flowing. Compare Ex. 1005, 2:9-12 (a wet cake of
cyanuric acid containing from about 65-99% cyanuric acid) with Shimamura, 1:44-
45 (“wherein at least one of said starting materials in powder form is a hydrate”).
Therefore, we interpret the claim term “wetcake” as meaning a solid
material comprising particles having some adherence to one another such that they
IPR2014-00382
Patent 7,728,132 B2

12

are not free flowing. We do not adopt Declarant’s proposed construction of
“wetcake of monoalkali metal cyanurate” as necessarily encompassing material in
the form of a hydrate, see Ex. 1006, 10, ¶ 11c, because Declarant’s testimony is at
odds with the intrinsic evidence, see Shimamura 1:44-49 (“wherein at least one of
said starting materials in powder form is a hydrate, or both of said starting
materials are anhydrates, in which case water is added to the anhydrates in an
amount sufficient to produce a hydrate at room temperature, and wherein the
starting materials are mixed and kneaded together in powder form”). We find that,
for purposes of this Decision, a determination as to the specific moisture content of
a “cyanuric acid wetcake” or a “wetcake of a monoalkali metal cyanurate” is
unnecessary.
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Anticipation of Claims 7 and 9-12 by Stephan
Challenged independent claims 7, 11, and 12, and challenged dependent
claim 9 recite a “method for preparing a dry, solid monoalkali metal cyanurate.”
Challenged independent claim 10 recites a “method for preparing a slurry of
monoalkali metal cyanurate.” Each of the independent claims recites a first step of
blending cyanuric acid wetcake3 with a monoalkali metal base to form “a wetcake
of monoalkali metal cyanurate.” Based on our interpretation of the claim term
“wetcake,” supra pp. 11-12, we determine the first step recited in each of
challenged claims 7 and 10-12 requires forming a solid material comprising
particles of monoalkali metal cyanurate having some adherence to one another
such that they are not free flowing.

3Claims 10-12 recite “cyanuric acid or cyanuric acid wetcake.”
IPR2014-00382
Patent 7,728,132 B2

13

1. Stephan (Ex. 1002)
Stephan “relates to a process for producing a monoalkali metal cyanurate
powder” by “adding an aqueous solution of a monoalkali hydroxide to a cyanuric
acid powder.” Ex. 1002, 2:44-47. “[T]he monoalkali hydroxide is [preferably]
either sodium or potassium hydroxide and is present in solution at a concentration
of from about 40% to about 60% wt/wt.” Id. at 2:51-54. “The cyanuric acid
powder should have a moisture content of 20% or less, preferably 5% or less,”
because excess moisture in the cyanuric acid powder causes the reactant mixture to
form a pasty or dough-like mass. Id. at 3:5-8. Stephan indicates a preference for
cyanuric acid powder below 20 mesh. Id. at 3: 29-30. Stephan defines “[t]he term
‘powder’” as “any substance in the form of fine, dustlike particles, produced by
crushing or grinding.” Id. at 2:36-37. According to Stephan, “[t]he addition of a
caustic hydroxide solution . . . to the cyanuric acid powder causes an exothermic
reaction to take place[,] . . . reduc[ing] the amount of moisture present in the mix.”
Id. at 3:60-63. “The reaction can be terminated any time after the desired aqueous
alkali metal hydroxide solution is added, preferably as long as the material has no
clumps and is a free flowing powder.” Id. at 4:29-32.
[T]he particle size of the formed sodium or potassium cyanurate will
be reasonably equivalent to the particle size of the starting cyanuric
acid powder. Mixing equipment, such as a ribbon blender, will form
spherical particles during 1 to 6 hours of blending, and yield a free
flowing, granular powder, which requires no additional drying or
grinding.
Id. at 3:53-59. “Without further drying, the resultant alkali metal cyanurate will be
a hydrate such as monosodium cyanurate monohydrate.” Id. at 4:1-3; see also id.,
Abstract (“The concentrated aqueous alkali hydroxide solution is added
sequentially to the cyanuric acid powder as the admixture is vigorously mixed,
IPR2014-00382
Patent 7,728,132 B2

14

forming a monoalkali metal cyanurate as a hydrated powder.”).
2. Stephan Declaration (Ex. 1006)
Declarant calculates the monosodium cyanurate monohydrate disclosed in
Stephan as comprising 10.65% water and 89.35% monoalkali metal cyanurate by
weight. Ex. 1006 at 11, ¶ 11c. Declarant testifies that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention of the ’132 Patent would have recognized that
Stephan’s disclosure of ‘monosodium cyanurate monhodyrate’ as a reaction
product (Stephan at 4:1-3) constitutes a wetcake of monoalkali metal cyanurate as
that term is used in the ’132 Patent.” Id. at 10, ¶ 11c. Declarant’s testimony is
based on his opinion that “wetcake of monoalkali metal cyanurate” as recited in the
challenged claims “mean[s] a composition comprising monoalkali metal cyanurate
and water, where the composition contains about 40-90% monoalkali metal
cyanurate by weight.” Id. at 3, ¶ 7b.
3. Analysis
“It is axiomatic that for anticipation, each and every claim limitation must be
explicitly or inherently disclosed in the prior art.” In re NTP, INC., 654 F.3d 1279,
1302 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). “The anticipation analysis asks solely
whether the prior art reference discloses and enables the claimed invention, and not
how the prior art characterizes that disclosure or whether alternatives are also
disclosed.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Sys., Inc., 340 F.3d 1314, 1324 n.6
(Fed. Cir. 2003).
Petitioner contends the monosodium cyanurate monohydrate formed in
Stephan’s method contains 89.35% monoalkali metal cyanurate and, therefore,
corresponds to a “wetcake of monoalkali metal cyanurate,” as recited in challenged
claims 7 and 9-12. Pet. 20, 26, 30-31, and 34 (citing Ex. 1006 at 10-11, ¶ 11c).
Petitioner’s contention is based on Declarant’s interpretation of the challenged
IPR2014-00382
Patent 7,728,132 B2

15

claim limitation “wetcake of monoalkali metal cyanurate” as meaning a
composition containing water and 40-90% monoalkali metal cyanurate by weight.
Id. (citing Ex. 1006 at 3, ¶ 7b).
In response, Patent Owner argues Petitioner’s proposed correspondence is
based on an erroneous construction of the phrase “wetcake of monoalkali metal
cyanurate” as encompassing a dry powder. Prelim. Resp. 25 and 30-31. Patent
Owner contends Stephan’s reaction mixture is in the form of a free flowing
powder, and the product of the reaction, monosodium cyanurate monohydrate, is
likewise a free flowing powder. Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1002, 3:46-48, 3:57-58, 4:52-
53). Patent Owner argues Stephan’s method “never forms a wetcake at any step.”
Id. (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 31.
We agree with Patent Owner that Stephan’s disclosure is directed to
formation of a dry, free-flowing powder, not a wet solid, of monoalkali metal
cyanurate. See Ex. 1002, 4:29-32 (referring to the reaction product as a material
having no clumps and “a free flowing powder”). A “wetcake,” as we interpret this
claim term, does not encompass a free-flowing powder, and does not necessarily
encompass material in the form of a hydrate. See supra pp. 11-12.
Because Petitioner has not identified in Stephan a description of forming “a
wetcake of a monoalkali metal cyanurate,” as recited in challenged claims 7 and 9-
12, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on
the ground that claims 7 and 9-12 are anticipated by Stephan.
C. Obviousness Grounds
Petitioner argues claim 10 would have been obvious over Stephan in view of
Jany, claims 11 and 12 would have been obvious over Stephan in view of Doonan,
and claims 1-9 would have been obvious over Stephan in view of Jany and
Doonan. Those grounds depend on Petitioner’s contention that Stephan describes
IPR2014-00382
Patent 7,728,132 B2

16

a “wetcake” as specified in the challenged claims. For the reasons stated above, on
this record, Petitioner fails to show that Stephan contains such a disclosure, and
neither Jany nor Doonan remedies that failure. Based on the information
presented, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing at trial
with respect to any claim challenged in the remaining grounds.
V. CONCLUSION
Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail
on the grounds that: (1) claims 7 and 9-12 are anticipated by Stephan; (2) claim 10
would have been obvious over Stephan in view of Jany; (3) claims 11 and 12
would have been obvious over Stephan in view of Doonan; and (4) claims 1-9
would have been obvious over Stephan in view of Jany and Doonan.
VI. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.

PETITIONER:
Michael R. Langer
mrlanger@michaelbest.com

Kevin P. Moran
kpmoran@michaelbest.com

Andrew T. Dufresne
atdufresne@michaelbest.com

PATENT OWNER:
Audrey A. Millemann
amillemann@weintraub.com