World Bottling Cap, LLCv.Crown Packaging Technology Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 14, 2015

13585303 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 6
Tel: 571–272–7822 Entered: May 14, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
WORLD BOTTLING CAP, LLC,
Petitioner,
v.
CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Patent Owner.
_______________

Case IPR2015-00296
Patent 8,550,271 B2
_______________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judge.

SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.

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

IPR2015-00296
Patent 8,550,271 B2

2

I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner requests an inter partes review of claims 1–20 of U.S.
Patent No. 8,550,271 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’271 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet”).
Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 5 (“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,
Preliminary Response, and the papers and exhibits cited therein, we do not
institute an inter partes review on any of the challenged claims.
A. Related Matters
The parties report no current related matters. Pet. 1; Paper 4.
B. The ’271 Patent
The ’271 patent describes a bottle cap, also known as a crown cap.
The ’271 patent describes the invention as a crown cap that is made with
thinner and harder steel compared to conventional crown caps. Ex. 1001,
5:34–38. The ’271 patent describes conventional crown caps as formed
from T4 tinplate (tin-plated steel) having a thickness of 0.21 mm to 0.23 mm
and an average hardness of 61 on the 30T hardness scale. Id. at 4:52–58.
The ’271 patent describes the invention, in contrast, as formed from steel
having a thickness of 0.16 mm to 0.18 mm and an average hardness of
greater than 62 on the 30T scale. Id. at 4:58–65, 5:6–9. Reducing the
amount of steel used purportedly provides the benefit of lower carbon
emissions, such as from cooling that material (when aggregated over the
billions of caps produced each year). Id. at 5:34–38.
IPR2015-00296
Patent 8,550,271 B2

3

C. Illustrative Claim
Petitioner challenges each claim of the ’271 patent. Claims 1, 12, and
20 are independent. Independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A lightweight crown cap for application to a glass
beverage bottle, comprising:
a shell formed of a material comprising steel
having an average hardness of greater than 62
on the 30T scale, the shell including:
a peripheral skirt having, flutes downwardly
depending therefrom, the flutes are capable of
being crimped to affix the crown cap to a
bottle; and
a round panel integrally formed with the skirt, the
panel including at least one recessed circular
groove that has its center approximately at the
longitudinal center of the panel; and
a liner located on the underside of the panel.

D. Asserted Ground and Prior Art
Petitioner asserts that claims 1–20 of the ’271 patent are unpatentable
over the following grounds:
References Basis Claims Challenged
Frishman
1
and Beer Packaging
2
§103 1–4, 10, 12–15, and 17–20
Frishman, Beer Packaging, and
Wagner
3

§103 11 and 16

1
US Patent No. 8,061,544 B2, issued Nov. 22, 2011, published Aug. 9,
2007, continuation-in-part of application No. PCT/US2006/002421 (filed on
Jan. 24, 2006), provisional application No. 60/758,725 (filed on Jan. 14,
2006) (Ex. 1003).
2
Beer Packaging, A Manual for the Brewing and Beverage Industry, edited
by Harold M. Broderick, Technical Director, Master Brewers Association of
the Americas 1982, Fifth Printing, July 2000 (Ex. 1004).
3
U.S. Patent No. 2,233,904, issued Mar. 4, 1941 (Ex. 1005).
IPR2015-00296
Patent 8,550,271 B2

4

References Basis Claims Challenged
Beer Packaging and Wagner §103 1–4 and 10–20
Frishman, Beer Packaging, and
Mumford
4

§103 5–9
Beer Packaging, Wagner, and
Mumford
§103 5–9

II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
We interpret the claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent. 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1281–82 (Fed.
Cir. 2015). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation 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). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth with
reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Independent claims 1 and 12 recite a “[crown] shell formed of a
material comprising steel having an average hardness of greater than 62 on
the 30T scale.” Independent claim 20 includes a similar limitation, but
recites “metal” instead of “material.” Petitioner asserts that “average
hardness” is “the reported hardness value regardless of +/– variations” and
that “hardness” refers to Rockwell hardness. Pet. 15–16. Patent Owner does

4
U.S. Patent No. 3,152,711, issued Oct. 13, 1964 (Ex. 1006).
IPR2015-00296
Patent 8,550,271 B2

5

not contest these assertions. Prelim. Resp. 11–12. Based on our review of
the record, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposed constructions of
“average hardness” and “hardness” are the broadest reasonable construction
in light of the Specification. Accordingly, we adopt these proposed
constructions.
B. Overview of the Prior Art
1. Beer Packaging
Petitioner relies on the Beer Packaging reference for each of its
asserted grounds. Pet. 3–4. Beer Packaging is a manual for the brewing and
beverage industries, and describes, inter alia, various aspects of bottle
closures, including crown caps. See generally Ex. 1004, 167–91. Beer
Packaging describes that crown caps are manufactured using steel that is
coated electrolytically with tin then annealed to one of two tempers: T3 or
T4. Id. at 168–69. Table 2 of Beer Packaging is reproduced below:
Table 2 of Beer Packaging indicates that T3 and T4 tempered tin mill
products are used in crown caps. Id. at 170. T3 temper includes a Rockwell
IPR2015-00296
Patent 8,550,271 B2

6

hardness range of 57 ± 3 on the 30T scale and T4 temper includes a
Rockwell hardness range of 61 ± 3 on the 30T scale. Id. Table 2 also
discloses a T5 temper that includes a Rockwell hardness range of 65 ± 3 on
the 30T scale, but does not list crown caps among the examples of usage.
2. Other References
Petitioner also relies on Frishman, Wagner, and Mumford. Frishman
discloses a crown cap having a pull tab. Ex. 1003, Abstr. Wagner discloses
a crown cap having concentric beads and a lining. Ex. 1005, Figs. 1–3.
Mumford discloses a closure cap for bottles and jars that uses sheet metal
having a Rockwell hardness of about 54 to 72 on the “T-30” scale. Ex.
1006, 1:9–12, 4:44–45.
C. Analysis
A dispositive issue in this Decision is whether Petitioner has shown
sufficiently that the Beer Packaging reference discloses a “shell formed of a
[material/metal] comprising steel having an average hardness of greater than
62 on the 30T scale.”
Petitioner relies on the Beer Packaging reference to show this
limitation in each of the asserted grounds. Pet. 17–19, 39. Specifically,
Petitioner asserts that Beer Packaging teaches the use of T4 tinplate for
crown caps, which has “a Rockwell hardness of 62, 63 or 64.” Pet. 18
(citing Ex. 1004, 169); Ex. 1004, 169 (“for T-4, the [hardness] range is 58–
64 (see Table []2)”). Petitioner then reasons that “[i]t follows then that the
Rockwell 30T hardness for the shells of crown caps of 63 and 64 disclosed
in Beer Packaging is ‘greater than 62 on the 30T scale.’” Pet. 19.
IPR2015-00296
Patent 8,550,271 B2

7

Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. George K. Crochiere, testifies to the same. Ex.
1007 ¶ 28.
Patent Owner argues that Beer Packaging discloses that T4 tinplate
has an average hardness of 61, according to Petitioner’s proffered
construction of “average hardness” (the reported hardness value regardless
of +/– variations). Prelim. Resp. 11–14. In particular, Patent Owner argues
that Beer Packaging discloses that T4 tinplate has a hardness of 61 ± 3,
which is a disclosure of an average hardness of 61. Id. at 13–14. In
essence, Patent Owner argues that although the range of hardness values of
T4 tinplate may go up to 64 (61 + 3), the average hardness of that material
remains 61. See id.
Reviewing Petitioner’s analysis, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s
argument. Petitioner merely points out that the Beer Packaging reference
discloses the material of a crown cap shell having a hardness of greater than
62, but does not explain how this discloses a material of a crown cap shell
having an average hardness of greater than 62, as required by the claims.
Pet. 18–19. Petitioner’s proposed construction of “average hardness” directs
us to ignore the range of values surrounding a value (e.g., +/– values) when
considering what is “average hardness.” This presumably would mean that
Beer Packaging’s disclosure of 61 ± 3 would disclose an “average hardness”
of 61, as Patent Owner argues. Prelim. Resp. 13–14; see also Ex. 1001,
4:52–58 (describing how T4 tinplate crown caps, i.e., the crown caps
disclosed in the Beer Packaging reference, conventionally have an “average
hardness” of 61). Notwithstanding, Petitioner argues that we should now
take into consideration the +/– values and consider particular hardness
IPR2015-00296
Patent 8,550,271 B2

8

values within that +/– range to satisfy the limitation of the claims requiring
an average hardness.
Reviewing the Petition and the evidence cited therein, neither
Petitioner nor its declarant explain sufficiently how a material having a
hardness of greater than 62 on the 30T scale discloses a material having an
average hardness of greater than 62 on the 30T scale. Accordingly, we
determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing a reasonable
likelihood of prevailing on its contention that the subject matter of claims 1–
20 of the ’271 patent is unpatentable.
III. ORDER
In view of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition is
DENIED and an inter partes review is NOT INSTITUTED.

IPR2015-00296
Patent 8,550,271 B2

9

PETITIONER:

Theodore Baroody
baroody@cclaw.com

James Ortega
Ortega@cclaw.com

PATENT OWNER:

Harold Fullmer
hfullmer@bakerlaw.com

Daniel Goettle
dgoettle@bakerlaw.com

Sarah Dukmen
IPR2015-00296@bakerlaw.com