PTAB

IPR2013-00159

Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. v. Aqua Products, Inc.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Automated Swimming Pool Cleaner Having an Angled Jet Drive Propulsion System
  • Brief Description: The ’183 patent discloses a self-propelled swimming pool cleaner that uses a water jet for propulsion. The cleaner includes a housing with a water inlet, an internal water pump that draws in and filters water, and at least one discharge conduit that expels a pressurized stream of water at an acute angle to the pool surface, creating a downwardly directed resultant force to aid propulsion and stability.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims over Myers - Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, and 21 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Myers.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Myers (Patent 3,321,787).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Myers discloses every element of the challenged independent claims (1, 20, and 21). Myers was asserted to teach a self-propelled cleaning apparatus for a swimming pool comprising a housing, rotationally-mounted supports (scrubbing elements), an internal water pump configured to draw water through an inlet for filtering, and a stationary directional discharge conduit. Petitioner contended this conduit expels a pressurized water jet at a predetermined acute angle to the surface, creating the claimed propulsive force. For dependent claims, Myers was alleged to show key limitations such as a linear discharge conduit (claim 2) and a resultant force vector that crosses the plane of the supports' axes of rotation (claim 3).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Henkin in view of Myers - Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 19, 20, and 21 are obvious over Henkin in view of Myers.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Henkin (Patent 3,936,899) and Myers (Patent 3,321,787).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Henkin discloses a self-propelled pool cleaner with key features of the independent claims, including rotationally-mounted supports and a stationary discharge conduit that expels a water jet at an acute angle for propulsion. However, Henkin’s cleaner is powered by an external pump via a supply hose. Myers was argued to supply the missing element: a self-contained, internally mounted water pump that draws water through an inlet for filtering and propulsion.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Henkin's cleaner design with Myers's internal pump to eliminate the known problems associated with an external pump and supply hose, such as the need for a separate power source and the risk of the hose becoming entangled during operation.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success, as the combination involved substituting one known type of pump (external) with another (internal) in a predictable manner to achieve the well-understood benefit of a self-contained unit.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Pansini in view of Myers - Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 19, 20, and 21 are obvious over Pansini in view of Myers.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Pansini (Patent 4,100,641) and Myers (Patent 3,321,787).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: The argument mirrored the Henkin combination. Petitioner asserted that Pansini teaches a jet-powered submerged cleaner with an angled discharge nozzle but, like Henkin, relies on an external pump and hose to deliver pressurized water. The petition argued that Myers teaches the internally mounted pump and filter system necessary to make the device self-contained and fully functional as claimed.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was identical to that asserted for the Henkin combination. A POSITA would integrate Myers's internal pump into Pansini's design to create a more convenient, self-contained unit without a cumbersome and potentially entangling supply hose.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as a straightforward integration of known components to achieve a predictable improvement, yielding a reasonable expectation of success.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional obviousness challenges against nearly all challenged claims based on a combination of Altschul (Patent 4,429,429) in view of Myers. These grounds relied on the same core theory of replacing the external pump and supply hose disclosed in Altschul with the self-contained, internal pump taught by Myers to solve the known problems associated with external hoses.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested that an inter partes review be instituted and that claims 1-14, 16, and 19-21 of Patent 8,273,183 be canceled as unpatentable.