PTAB

IPR2013-00526

Tandus Flooring Inc v. Interface Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Floor Covering with Varying Size Carpet Tiles
  • Brief Description: The ’772 patent discloses a system for installing carpet tiles of varying sizes and shapes to create a floor covering. The system uses adhesive-coated connectors that span the undersides of adjacent tiles, linking them together to form a "floating" floor that is not secured to the underlying surface.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kinoshita and Connector References - Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are obvious over Kinoshita in view of Scott, Tape Pad 822 Data Sheet, Tape Pad 3750P Data Sheet, Robinson, and/or Pears.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kinoshita (JP Pat. App. Pub. No. H5-163825), Scott (US 2006/0107617), 3M Tape Pad 822 Data Sheet (2003), 3M Tape Pad 3750P Data Sheet (2003), Robinson (3,241,662), and Pears (3,819,773).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kinoshita taught the core concept of a floating floor system using adhesive tape to connect the rear surfaces of adjacent carpet tiles. Kinoshita also disclosed that the tiles could vary in size and shape and that smaller tiles could be cut from larger ones. Petitioner contended that Kinoshita implicitly taught preventing relative tile movement but did not specify the construction of the adhesive tape, particularly the properties of its backing film.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would find it an obvious design choice to select a tape for Kinoshita’s system that has a film backing, as films are common substrates for adhesive tapes. To ensure the flooring system remains stable and resists stretching under load, a POSITA would be motivated to select a film with known high-strength properties. The secondary references (Scott, the Tape Pad Data Sheets, Robinson, and Pears) all disclosed film-backed tapes with the specific high tensile strength properties recited in the challenged claims.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings, as using a known high-strength tape film would predictably provide the necessary stability and resistance to stretching required for Kinoshita's floating floor application.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kobayashi and Connector References - Claims 1-20 are obvious over Kobayashi in view of Scott, Tape Pad 822 Data Sheet, Tape Pad 3750P Data Sheet, Robinson, and/or Pears.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kobayashi (US 2004/0062899), Scott (Application # US 2006/0107617), 3M Tape Pad 822 Data Sheet (2003), 3M Tape Pad 3750P Data Sheet (2003), Robinson (Patent 3,241,662), and Pears (Patent 3,819,773).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Kobayashi disclosed a modular area rug system composed of separate floor covering pieces that could vary in size, shape, and pattern. Kobayashi taught that these pieces could be attached to one another using conventional means, such as tape along the seams of their reverse side, to prevent relative movement. However, Kobayashi did not specify the properties of the tape.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation for combining Kobayashi with the secondary references was similar to the Kinoshita ground. Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine the teachings to ensure the modular rug pieces remained dimensionally stable and did not form gaps during use. A POSITA would look to commercially available tapes with known high strength, as disclosed by Scott et al., to solve this predictable problem.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Pacione and Connector References - Claims 1-6, 9-15, and 18-20 are obvious over Pacione in view of Scott, Tape Pad 822 Data Sheet, Tape Pad 3750P Data Sheet, Robinson, and/or Pears.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Pacione (6,298,624), Scott (Application # US 2006/0107617), 3M Tape Pad 822 Data Sheet (2003), 3M Tape Pad 3750P Data Sheet (2003), Robinson (Patent 3,241,662), and Pears (Patent 3,819,773).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Pacione taught a "free float" floor covering system using carpet modules of various sizes, shapes, and patterns. These modules were joined by "anchor sheets" (connectors) made of thin polymer film (e.g., polycarbonate, polyester) that could be attached to the tile undersides with adhesive. Pacione explicitly stated that the resulting floor covering must have sufficient rigidity and "shear force stability."
    • Motivation to Combine: While Pacione taught using a polymer film as a connector, it did not disclose the specific tensile strength ranges recited in the claims. Petitioner contended a POSITA, seeking to achieve Pacione’s stated goal of stability, would be motivated to select a film with known and suitable mechanical properties. The secondary references taught that films with the claimed tensile strengths were well-known in the art for providing stability in similar applications.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations based on Lenti in view of Pacione, which relied on similar theories of replacing hook-and-loop fasteners with known adhesive tapes possessing desirable high-strength film properties.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "film configured to resist stretching": Petitioner proposed this term should be construed in light of the specification to mean a film possessing the specific material properties disclosed therein, namely a tensile strength between 160-270 MPa or the ability to be stretched 120-200% before breaking. This construction was central to mapping the secondary prior art references to the claims.
  • "layer of adhesive prevents relative movement between the tiles": Petitioner argued this phrase should be interpreted broadly to mean the prevention of either horizontal (lateral) or vertical movement of a tile relative to an adjacent one. Petitioner asserted that either type of movement could result in gaps and constitute an installation failure, making a broad construction appropriate.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent 8,468,772 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.