PTAB

IPR2013-00159

Zodiac Pool Systems Inc v. Aqua Products Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

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 an internal water pump that draws in water for filtering and then expels it through at least one stationary discharge conduit angled acutely relative to the pool surface, creating a downward force for traction and a forward thrust for movement.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1-4, 13, 14, 16, 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. §102 over Myers

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Myers (Patent 3,321,787).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Myers discloses every limitation of the challenged independent and dependent claims. Myers describes a self-propelled swimming pool cleaning device with a housing, rotationally-mounted supports (scrubbing brushes), and a baseplate with a water inlet. It explicitly teaches an internally mounted water pump that draws water through the inlet for filtering and discharges a pressurized stream of water through a stationary conduit. Critically, Petitioner asserted that Myers’s discharge conduit is disposed at a predetermined acute angle to the surface, which provides a "jet force to move the unit." Petitioner further mapped specific limitations of dependent claims, such as the linear shape of the discharge conduit (claim 2) and the resultant force vector crossing a plane between the supports (claim 3), directly to the figures and description within Myers. For claims 20 and 21, Petitioner argued Myers discloses both the apparatus and the corresponding method of propelling it via the angled water jet.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1-5, 7-9, 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. §103 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 argued that Henkin discloses a self-propelled, jet-driven pool cleaner with most of the claimed elements, including a housing, wheels, and a stationary discharge conduit that expels water at an acute angle to provide both downward traction and forward propulsion. However, Henkin is powered by an external pump via a supply hose. Petitioner contended that Myers remedies this deficiency by disclosing a self-contained pool cleaner with an internal water pump that draws water in for filtering and propulsion, a common and well-known configuration. The combination of Henkin’s jet propulsion and angled nozzle system with Myers’s internal pump would result in the apparatus claimed in the ’183 patent.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Henkin with Myers to solve the known problems associated with external supply hoses, such as entanglement, storage, and the need for an external power source. Replacing Henkin's external pump with the self-contained internal pump taught by Myers was presented as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and improve usability.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as incorporating an internal pump into a pool cleaner was a well-established design choice, and its function within the combined system would have been entirely predictable.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 1-9, 19-21 under §103 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: This ground presented a similar argument to Ground 2. Petitioner asserted that Pansini teaches a jet-powered submerged cleaner with a housing, wheels, and multiple jet nozzles that discharge water at an angle to propel the device and provide a "hold-down force." Like Henkin, Pansini relies on an external pump and hose to supply pressurized water. Petitioner argued that Myers teaches the missing element: a self-contained, internally mounted pump for drawing in and expelling water. The combination of Pansini’s jetting and directional control system with the internal pump of Myers would allegedly render the claims of the ’183 patent obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was identical to that asserted for the Henkin combination: a POSITA would be motivated to replace the cumbersome external pump and hose of Pansini with the more efficient and less problematic internal pump design taught by Myers. This would be a common-sense design improvement to eliminate a known disadvantage in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: The expectation of success was argued to be high, as it involved combining known prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable improvement in the cleaner’s design and operation.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional obviousness challenges based on combining Altschul (Patent 4,429,429) in view of Myers, which relied on the same design modification theory of replacing an external pump with the internal pump taught by Myers.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-14, 16, and 19-21 of the ’183 patent as unpatentable.