PTAB

IPR2015-00488

Whole Space Industries Ltd v. z

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: PULL DOWN, PUSH UP, SHADE APPARATUS
  • Brief Description: The ’756 patent discloses a window covering apparatus where one or more primary lift lines are connected to a secondary line. The secondary line is wound onto a spool powered by a spring motor that acts as a counterbalance mechanism, allowing for cordless operation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation and Obviousness of Independent Claims over Core Art - Claims 1, 13, 18, and 21 are anticipated by or obvious over Toti or Bixler

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Toti (Patent 6,283,192), Bixler (Patent 13,251).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Toti and Bixler each independently disclose every element of the independent claims. Both references teach window coverings with an upper support (headrail), a collapsible member (shade material), primary lift cords, a secondary line, a pulley assembly, and a spring-based counterbalance mechanism. For instance, Petitioner mapped Toti’s counterbalance mechanism (26A, 31A, 41A) connected to a secondary line (between spools 181 and 182) which is in turn connected to lift cords (16, 17) via gears. Similarly, Petitioner asserted that Bixler discloses a spring (i) connected to a secondary cord (j) via a fusee (h), with the secondary cord connected to lift cords (c). Both systems operate without a manual pull cord, as claimed.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): While the primary assertion was anticipation, Petitioner argued in the alternative that any minor differences would have been obvious. For example, modifying the specific positioning of the spring motor within the headrail was presented as a common design choice to accommodate different cord paths or shade lengths. A POSITA would have found it obvious to arrange the known components of Bixler or Toti to achieve the claimed configuration.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the arguments rely on combining or arranging well-understood mechanical components for their predictable and intended functions in window shade applications.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner emphasized that the patentee had previously abandoned related applications (e.g., Application Nos. 11/090,590 and 11/687,590) after rejections based on Toti, suggesting an acquiescence that the subject matter was not patentable over this art.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Dependent Claims over Core Art in view of Secondary Art - Claims 2-9, 14-17, and 22-24 are obvious over Toti or Bixler in view of Debs and/or Gertzon

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Toti (Patent 6,283,192), Bixler (Patent 13,251), Debs (Patent 3,703,920), and Gertzon (Patent 2,594,637).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claims related to specific pulley arrangements and spring shapes. Petitioner argued that while Toti and Bixler disclose the fundamental systems, references like Debs and Gertzon explicitly teach the particular pulley and cord routing configurations recited in the dependent claims. For claims 6, 9, and 14, which require an "S-shaped" spring, Petitioner asserted that Toti expressly illustrates an identically shaped spring and that Bixler's spring also has an S-shape. For claims requiring specific cord routing, such as multiple rotors or changes in direction (claims 2-5, 15, 22-24), Petitioner contended that Debs and Gertzon show various linear pulley arrangements that a POSITA would readily incorporate into the systems of Toti or Bixler.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine the basic spring motor systems of Toti or Bixler with the specific pulley arrangements from Debs or Gertzon as a matter of routine design choice. The motivation would be to define a desired cord path to accommodate different window dimensions or to manage friction within the lift system, both of which are common engineering problems in the field with known solutions.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success would be expected as this combination involves substituting known structural components (e.g., one type of pulley arrangement for another) to achieve a predictable result (e.g., guiding lift cords through a headrail).

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional anticipation and obviousness challenges against all claims using various other combinations of the primary references with Kuhar (Patent 5,482,100), Coslett (Patent 5,170,830), Todd (Patent 6,056,036), and Wang (Patent 6,012,506), but relied on similar component-substitution and obvious-design-choice rationales.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-24 of Patent 8,245,756 as unpatentable.