PTAB

IPR2013-00527

Tandus Flooring Inc v. Interface Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Installing Carpet Tiles
  • Brief Description: The ’282 patent discloses a system for installing modular carpet tiles using adhesive connectors. These connectors, comprising a film with an adhesive layer, join adjacent tiles at their undersides to create a floor covering that "floats" over the subfloor without being directly attached to it.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. §102

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Pacione (Patent 6,298,624).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Pacione discloses every element of the challenged claims. Pacione teaches a system for installing carpet modules using "anchor sheets" (connectors) that function identically to those claimed in the ’282 patent. These anchor sheets are described as thin, flexible, yet relatively rigid films that tie carpet modules together into a functional unit that can "free float" on a floor. Petitioner asserted that Pacione’s disclosure of a releasable adhesive on the anchor sheet meets the "layer of adhesive" limitation and that its teaching of preventing "shear horizontal force" meets the "sufficient shear strength" limitation. Pacione also explicitly discloses the claimed film materials (polyolefin, polyester) and thickness ranges found in the dependent claims.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. §103

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kinoshita (JP Application # H5-163825) in view of Pacione (Patent 6,298,624).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Kinoshita teaches a method of installing carpet tiles using adhesive tape pieces applied to the rear surfaces to link them together without adhering to the floor. Kinoshita’s system prevents tiles from rising or peeling off during vacuuming, thereby teaching the requisite "sufficient shear strength." It also discloses providing the connectors in various formats (rolls, stacks) as recited in claims 10-14. However, Kinoshita does not explicitly disclose that its adhesive tape uses a "sufficiently stiff" film. Pacione was argued to supply this limitation, as it teaches using a "relatively thin flexible but relatively rigid" polymer film connector that can support its own weight over 12-24 inches, meeting the stiffness requirement of claim 1.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to use the rigid film taught by Pacione as the backing for the adhesive tape connectors in Kinoshita’s system. Both patents address the same problem of creating a stable, floating modular floor. A POSITA would recognize that incorporating Pacione’s stiffer film would improve handling during installation and help maintain the tiles in a flat, contiguous state, a known goal in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: Using a stiffer backing for an adhesive tape was a simple and predictable design choice. A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in combining these known elements to achieve the desired stability and ease of installation.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 3 and 8 under §103

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Pacione in view of Tape Pad 822 Data Sheet (Feb. 2003), Tape Pad 3750P Data Sheet (Mar. 2003), or Robinson (Patent 3,241,662).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that while Pacione teaches the basic floating tile system, it does not explicitly disclose the specific physical properties of the connector film recited in claims 3 and 8. Claim 3 requires a tensile strength between 160 and 270 MPa, and claim 8 requires the film be capable of being stretched at least 120% before breaking. Petitioner asserted that the Tape Pad Data Sheets and Robinson disclose commercially available adhesive tapes with film backings (e.g., polypropylene) that have these exact physical properties. For example, the Tape Pad 822 Data Sheet discloses a tape with a tensile strength of 245 MPa and an elongation at break of 160%.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to implement Pacione’s system would have consulted known, commercially available adhesive tapes to use as the connectors. The tapes described in the secondary references were suitable for this application and possessed desirable properties like strength and durability. Selecting a tape with the claimed properties from these known options would have been an obvious matter of design choice to ensure the longevity and performance of the final flooring installation.
    • Expectation of Success: The secondary references provide technical specifications for existing products, so a POSITA would have had a very high expectation that using these tapes would predictably result in a connector having the claimed physical characteristics.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous other obviousness challenges based on combinations of Lenti (EP Application # 1160076), Kobayashi (Application # 2004/0062899), Kusuyama (JP Application # S49-30420), and Matthews (WO 99/55792), which were argued to teach similar floating tile systems, in combination with Pacione, Kinoshita, and the tape-related references to supply specific claim limitations.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Term: "the layer of adhesive...comprises a sufficient shear strength so that...the connector prevents adjacent tiles from moving relative to the connector or each other thereby creating gaps between the adjacent tiles after installation" (claim 1).
  • Petitioner's Position: Petitioner argued this term should be interpreted functionally to mean that the adhesive prevents any relative movement, both lateral and vertical, that would constitute an installation failure. Because the patent provides no numerical value for shear strength, Petitioner contended that any adhesive that performs this function meets the "sufficient" limitation. This construction was central to mapping prior art that described functional stability (e.g., preventing tiles from shifting or peeling) without specifying quantitative shear strength values.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-14 of Patent 8,434,282 as unpatentable.