PTAB

IPR2015-00475

Fresh Products LLC v. Ed Ramirez

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Splash Attenuating Urinal Guard
  • Brief Description: The ’977 patent discloses an anti-splash device for urinals comprising a base with drain holes and a plurality of upstanding, closely spaced bristles. The key claimed function is that the bristles "wick down" a stream of urine onto the base to break it up and prevent splashing.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-12 are obvious over Kleinwachter in view of Luedtke ’347.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kleinwachter (German Publication No. DE19832716A1) and Luedtke ’347 (Patent 5,398,347).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Kleinwachter discloses an anti-drip device for toilets with all the key structural elements of claim 1: a perforated base with a "countless number" of "close-packed and staggered" upstanding rods (bristles). These bristles are substantially parallel, cover the surface, and, due to their density, would inherently perform the claimed "wick down" function of breaking up a urine stream and causing it to flow to the base. Dependent claims related to bristle dimensions (height-to-thickness ratio > 5:1) and spacing are also allegedly met by Kleinwachter’s explicit disclosure.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted Kleinwachter teaches its device can be "outfitted for nearly all kinds of toilets," which would include urinals. Luedtke ’347, which discloses a similar anti-splash mat specifically for horizontal placement in a urinal, provides a clear roadmap for this adaptation. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the superior bristle structure of Kleinwachter with the known urinal application of Luedtke ’347 to create an effective anti-splash urinal guard.
    • Expectation of Success: Because both references disclose similar bristle-based structures to solve the same problem of urine splashing, a POSITA would have a high expectation of success in adapting Kleinwachter's vertically-mounted toilet device for horizontal use in a urinal.

Ground 2: Claims 1-12 are obvious over Luedtke ’347 in view of Kleinwachter.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Luedtke ’347 (Patent 5,398,347) and Kleinwachter (German Publication No. DE19832716A1).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Luedtke ’347 serves as the primary reference, disclosing a splash-attenuating urinal mat with a base, drain holes, and upstanding, closely spaced "baffles" (bristles) that perform the claimed anti-splash function. To the extent that the precise bristle dimensions and spacing recited in the dependent claims (e.g., height-to-thickness ratio, number of adjacent bristles) are not explicitly detailed in Luedtke ’347, Kleinwachter supplies these teachings. Kleinwachter explicitly discloses bristles with a height-to-thickness ratio between 13:1 and 20:1 and describes them as "close-packed."
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA seeking to optimize the performance of the Luedtke ’347 urinal mat would have looked to analogous anti-splash devices. Kleinwachter provides an exemplary disclosure of effective bristle dimensions and density. Petitioner argued it would be an obvious design choice to modify the baffles of Luedtke ’347 to incorporate the specific, proven dimensions taught by Kleinwachter to improve splash prevention.
    • Expectation of Success: Modifying the dimensions and spacing of bristles was argued to be a routine design choice with predictable results. A POSITA would expect that incorporating the taller, thinner, and denser bristle configuration from Kleinwachter into Luedtke ’347 would predictably enhance its splash-reducing capabilities.

Ground 3: Claims 1-12 are obvious over Luedtke ’347 in view of Wrate.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Luedtke ’347 (Patent 5,398,347) and Wrate (U.S. Design Patent No. D520,610).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground again used Luedtke ’347 as the base reference for a urinal mat with anti-splash features. Wrate, a design patent for an "anti-splash urinal screen," was introduced to teach the specific bristle structure. Wrate discloses a mat with numerous bundles of tall, thin, and very closely spaced upstanding bristles. Petitioner asserted that the visual appearance and proportions of the bristles in Wrate's design inherently meet the limitations of the challenged claims, including the height-to-thickness ratio and the close spacing within each bundle.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Both Luedtke ’347 and Wrate are anti-splash urinal screens that use perpendicular members extending from a base to reduce splashing. A POSITA would recognize the bristle design in Wrate as a functional equivalent or alternative to the baffles in Luedtke ’347. It would have been an obvious substitution to incorporate the bristle arrangement shown in Wrate into the base urinal guard of Luedtke ’347.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved substituting one known type of anti-splash bristle structure for another in the same type of device to achieve the same goal. This substitution of known, equivalent elements would yield predictable results.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the term "wick down" required construction based on its use in the specification and prosecution history.
  • The term was added to the claims during prosecution to replace the term "flex" after obviousness and indefiniteness rejections.
  • Petitioner contended that "wick down" does not imply capillary action but was used by the patentee as a lexicographer to mean the function of bristles causing urine to flow generally along their surface from tip to base. This construction was central to Petitioner's argument that the prior art bristles, which guide fluid flow via gravity and momentum, inherently perform the "wick down" function as claimed.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 of the ’977 patent as unpatentable.