October 11, 2017
Ungrammatical Language Not Ambiguous in View of Specification as a Whole
In Organik Kimya AS v. Rohm and Haas Co., [2015-1983, 2015-2001] (October 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decisions in IPR2014-00185 and IPR2014-00350, sustaining the patentability of the challenged claims of U.S Patent Nos. 6,020,435 and 6,252,004, respectively.
The patents are directed to processes for preparing certain emulsion polymers having improved opacity. In the claimed processes a base swelling agent and excess monomer are introduced into an aqueous emulsion of the polymer, under conditions in which there is no substantial polymerization. At issue was was the meaning of “swelling agent” which the PTAB construed as not merely being capable of permeating a shell and swelling the core of a multistage emulsion polymer in the abstract, but specifically under the conditions of the specific process for which the agent is to be used. Organik argued that this improperly limited the term “swelling agent” in a manner that inappropriately distinguished the prior art.
Organik argued that the specification was ambiguous in describing the swelling agent:
Suitable swelling agents include, are those which, in the presence of the multistage emulsion polymer and monomer, are capable of permeating the shell and swelling the core. Swelling agents may be aqueous or gaseous, volatile or fixed bases or combinations thereof.
Organik also argued at the PTAB improperly adopted the narrower construction. The Federal Circuit noted that the Board did not find the language ambiguous, and agreed with the Board. Even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Board’s construction cannot be divorced from the specification and the record evidence, and must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.
The Board found that the prior art asserted by Organik lacked the swelling agent as that term was used in the claims. Organik argued the one example in a reference inherently showed a swelling agent, but Rohm and Haas provided experimental evidence through expert testimony that it did not. While Organik contested this evidence, the Board noted that Organik neither provided its own evidence, or showed how different experiments would have yielded different data.
The Federal Circuit found that Board concluded that neither Toda nor Touda discloses or suggests a “swelling agent” as required by the ’435 and ’004 Patents, and that the Board’s decisions are in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence in the record, and are affirmed.