PTAB

IPR2014-01162

Dynamic DrInkware LLC v. National Graphics Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: High Definition Lenticular Lens
  • Brief Description: The ’467 patent discloses a high definition lenticular lens designed for improved image clarity. The key claimed features are a plurality of lenticules each having an arc angle greater than about 90 degrees, a width less than about 0.006667 inches, and a gauge thickness substantially equal to the focal length of the lenticules.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Quadracci - Claims 1, 2, 23, 24, and 27-29 are anticipated by Quadracci under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Quadracci (5,266,995).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Quadracci taught all key limitations of the challenged independent claims. Quadracci disclosed a high-definition lenticular lens with a preferred density of over 300 lenticules per inch (lpi), corresponding to a lenticule width of less than 0.003333 inches, which is well below the claimed threshold. The lenticules were described as having a "half cylinder" shape, which inherently possesses an arc angle of approximately 180 degrees, satisfying the "greater than about 90 degrees" limitation. Quadracci further taught that the focal length of each lenticule should coincide with its distance from the printing layer, meeting the requirement that gauge thickness be substantially equal to focal length. For claims requiring a thickness less than 10 mils, Petitioner asserted this was inherently disclosed, as a calculation using well-known lens formulas for Quadracci’s 300 lpi lens yielded a thickness of approximately 3.4 mils. Petitioner also noted that the European counterpart to the ’467 patent was rejected over Quadracci on similar grounds.

Ground 2: Anticipation over Rice - Claims 1-4, 23, 24, and 27-29 are anticipated by Rice under pre-AIA §102(b).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Rice (3,241,429).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Rice, which was not considered during prosecution, anticipated all limitations of the asserted claims. Rice disclosed a lenticular lens with a preferred width between 0.005 and 0.015 inches; the lower end of this range satisfied the claimed "less than about 0.006667 inches." Rice explicitly taught an objective of providing a wider viewing angle, showing a lens with an arc angle of approximately 145 degrees, which is greater than 90 degrees. The reference also disclosed that the focal point of the lenticules should lie "at least substantially in the plane of the image layer," meeting the focal length-to-thickness requirement. Finally, Rice described a screen thickness between 5 and 25 mils, which Petitioner argued satisfied the "less than about 10 mils" limitation of certain dependent claims.

Ground 3: Anticipation over Fotland - Claims 1-4, 23, 24, and 27-29 are anticipated by Fotland under pre-AIA §102(b).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fotland (4,920,039).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Fotland, also not considered during prosecution, anticipated the challenged claims. Fotland disclosed a high-density lenticular sheet with 200 to 600 lpi, corresponding to a width between 0.005 and 0.001667 inches, which is less than the claimed limit. Fotland’s figures illustrated an arc angle of approximately 130-135 degrees, satisfying the >90 degree limitation. The reference explicitly taught that the focal length of the lenticules should be equal to the thickness of the lenticular sheet. Furthermore, Fotland described its film as "relatively thin," preferably less than 10 mils and typically between 2 to 6 mils, directly teaching the thickness limitation of dependent claims.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. §103. The primary obviousness grounds combined the high-definition lenticular lens taught by Quadracci, Rice, or Fotland with secondary references for conventional applications. These included:

    • Combining the primary lens references with Sekiguchi (5,364,274) and Patent Owner's admitted prior art to render claims directed to applying the lens to packages, containers, cups, and labels (claims 30-31, 34-35, 38-39, 42-43, 46) obvious. The motivation was the known industry practice of using lenticular images on such items.
    • Combining the primary lens references with Patent Owner's admitted prior art (including the incorporated ’515 patent) to render claims directed to specific printing methods, materials (e.g., polyester, vinyl), image types (bar codes, small text), and manufacturing steps (e.g., adding a flood coating) obvious. The motivation was that applying these known techniques to a higher-resolution lens to solve known resolution problems would have been an obvious design choice for a POSITA.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-46 of the ’467 patent as unpatentable.