PTAB

IPR2015-00841

Baby Trend Inc v. Wonderland Nurserygoods Co Ltd

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Baby Crib
  • Brief Description: The ’919 patent discloses a child enclosure structure, such as a playard or crib, featuring a specific mechanism for attaching a fabric enclosure to a frame of upright tubes. The design uses positioning posts attached to the fabric, which are inserted into receiving holes via slits in the tubes, allowing the fabric to extend outward while the outer contour of the tubes remains exposed for aesthetic purposes.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Pasin and Stoeckler - Claims 1-5, 8-14, and 20-28 are obvious over Pasin in view of Stoeckler.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Pasin (Patent 6,004,182) and Stoeckler (Patent 7,063,096).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Pasin discloses a temporary child enclosure with all major structural elements of the challenged claims, including a frame of tubular members and fabric panels connected using rod formations (positioning posts) that insert into slots (receiving holes) in the frame members. Pasin’s design shows the fabric panels extending between the frame members with zero contact to their outer surfaces. Stoeckler, which discloses a collapsible tent, teaches a nearly identical connection mechanism (a keder-profile) and explicitly shows an embodiment where the fabric has minimal, or negligible, contact with the outer surface of the vertical posts.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine the teachings of Stoeckler with Pasin’s structure as a matter of simple design choice. Both references address the same problem of attaching fabric to a frame without extraneous fasteners. Applying Stoeckler's teaching of minimal contact would be a predictable modification to Pasin to achieve a desired aesthetic or to improve manufacturability by allowing more flexibility in the rotational positioning of the slit on the tube.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination represents a simple substitution of one known connection variant for another to achieve the well-understood goal of an exposed-tube design in a child enclosure.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Pasin, Rexroad, and Stoeckler - Claims 15-19 and 29 are obvious over Pasin in view of Rexroad and Stoeckler.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Pasin (Patent 6,004,182), Rexroad (Patent 6,076,448), and Stoeckler (Patent 7,063,096).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses claims requiring “contiguously connected” side panels. Petitioner asserted that Pasin teaches the underlying frame and attachment structure but discloses separate fabric panels. Rexroad, directed to children's play areas, explicitly teaches a durable mesh enclosure with contiguously connected side panels to provide a safer environment. The combination of Pasin and Rexroad provides the complete structure, while Stoeckler is added to supply the teaching of minimal contact between the fabric and the tubes, as in Ground 1.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would combine Rexroad’s contiguous panel design with Pasin’s frame structure to overcome the limitation of Pasin’s separate panels. This combination would create a more integrated and safer enclosure, minimize connection points for easier assembly, and reduce manufacturing costs. The further addition of Stoeckler's teachings on minimal contact was presented as a predictable design choice for managing fabric tension and wear.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have been routine for a POSA. Substituting Pasin’s separate panels with Rexroad’s known contiguous panel construction would be a simple replacement of known parts to achieve the predictable benefits of improved safety and easier assembly.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Bidwell and Stoeckler - Claims 15-19 are obvious over Bidwell in view of Stoeckler.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bidwell (Australian Patent No. AU715883) and Stoeckler (Patent 7,063,096).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Bidwell discloses a child's cot with fabric sidewalls attached to vertical corner posts. A separate tubular retaining member with a slot engages over the post, clamping the fabric while leaving the retaining member's outer surface exposed. This structure was argued to teach the core limitations of the challenged claims, including the "upright tubes" and the "substantially out of contact" relationship. Stoeckler is combined to explicitly teach the option of having minimal, rather than zero, contact.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA reviewing Bidwell's design would have recognized that modifying the dimensions of the retaining member was a simple design choice to adjust fabric tension. A predictable result of such a modification (e.g., lengthening the retaining member's arc) would be the introduction of negligible contact between the fabric and the member, as shown in Stoeckler.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have expected this simple modification to be successful. The combination is based on common sense design principles within a finite number of available options to achieve the desirable and predictable outcome of increased fabric tension.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional challenges, including that claims 1-5, 8-14, and 20-28 are anticipated by Pasin and that claims 15-19 are anticipated by Bidwell, should the Board adopt a "zero contact" interpretation of "substantially out of contact." Further obviousness challenges were based on combinations including Bidwell and Pasin.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "substantially out of contact": Petitioner proposed the construction: "some, but only negligible contact, with the outwardly facing surface of the outer tube wall of each of the upright/support tubes."
  • This construction was central to Petitioner's arguments. It was based on the prosecution history of the ’919 patent, where the Patent Owner amended the claims from "out of contact" to "substantially out of contact" and amended a drawing (Figure 5) to show slight contact points to overcome prior art rejections. Petitioner's invalidity grounds were structured to succeed under this "negligible contact" construction (via obviousness combinations with Stoeckler) or, alternatively, under a "zero contact" construction (via anticipation by Pasin or Bidwell alone).

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-5 and 8-29 of the ’919 patent as unpatentable.