PTAB

IPR2015-00842

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 enclosures for children, such as playards, featuring a frame with upright corner tubes. A fabric enclosure member is attached to the frame by inserting positioning posts, located on the fabric's edge, into receiving holes within the tubes, allowing the fabric to extend outward through a slit in each tube wall.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Vaiano, Pasin, and Stoeckler

Claims 1-5 and 8-29 are obvious over Vaiano in view of Pasin and Stoeckler.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vaiano (Patent 3,924,280), Pasin (Patent 6,004,183), and Stoeckler (Patent 7,063,096).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Vaiano taught the foundational structure of a foldable playard with a fabric enclosure and exposed vertical corner tubes but lacked detail on the attachment mechanism. Pasin allegedly supplied this missing element by disclosing a well-known keder-style or welted-edge connection for children's temporary enclosures, where rod formations along fabric panel edges are inserted into slots on tubular frame members. This combination met the core limitations of a frame, fabric member, and positioning posts inserted into the tubes. Stoeckler was then added to teach the "substantially out of contact" limitation, as it disclosed a similar keder-profile connection for a collapsible tent where the fabric has minimal-to-zero contact with the outer surface of the vertical posts.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to modify Vaiano’s basic playard by incorporating a known, reliable, and aesthetically clean attachment mechanism to maintain the exposed-tube look. Pasin provided a predictable solution from the same field (children’s enclosures). A POSITA would further combine Stoeckler to refine the design for improved durability (reducing fabric wear) and easier manufacturing, which are common design goals. Compliance with safety standards, such as ASTM F406-02, which favor uniform fabric support, also provided motivation.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved applying known connection technologies (Pasin, Stoeckler) to a conventional product (Vaiano) to achieve predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Vaiano, Rexroad, and Stoeckler

Claims 1-4, 8-10, and 12-27 are obvious over Vaiano in view of Rexroad and Stoeckler.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vaiano (Patent 3,924,280), Rexroad (Patent 6,076,448), and Stoeckler (Patent 7,063,096).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented a similar argument to Ground 1, substituting Rexroad for Pasin. Vaiano again provided the basic playard structure with exposed tubes. Rexroad was argued to teach the necessary attachment mechanism, disclosing a durable mesh for children's play areas secured to frame members via an elongate member on the mesh edge that slides into a longitudinal slit in the frame. Petitioner contended this taught the claimed positioning posts, receiving holes, and attachment method. Stoeckler was again relied upon to disclose the "substantially out of contact" relationship between the fabric and the outer tube surface.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was analogous to Ground 1. A POSITA would seek to improve upon Vaiano’s design by implementing a robust and safe fabric attachment method. Rexroad, which explicitly relates to children's play areas and durable mesh, provided a clear, known option. The desire to prevent fabric unraveling, provide uniform tension, and comply with safety standards would motivate the adoption of Rexroad’s keder-type connection. Stoeckler was then added to achieve the benefits of minimal fabric contact, as previously argued.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected as this ground also involved the combination of established components from the same technical field to solve known design challenges in a predictable manner.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted four additional obviousness grounds that were largely contingent on the Board’s construction of "substantially out of contact." These grounds relied on subsets of the primary art, arguing that if a "zero contact" construction was adopted, Stoeckler would be unnecessary, making claims obvious over Vaiano in view of Pasin (Ground 2) or Vaiano in view of Rexroad (Ground 4). Further grounds combined these references to challenge specific dependent claims requiring caps or curved tubes (Grounds 5 and 6).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "substantially out of contact": This term was central to Petitioner's arguments. 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."
  • Strategic Importance: This construction was based on the ’919 patent’s prosecution history, where the applicant amended the claims from "out of contact" to "substantially out of contact" and amended figures to show negligible, rather than zero, contact to overcome rejections. Petitioner structured its arguments to invalidate the claims regardless of the construction adopted. If its proposed construction was accepted, the combination with Stoeckler (which shows minimal contact) rendered the claims obvious. If a broader or "zero contact" construction was adopted, Petitioner argued the claims were still obvious over combinations without Stoeckler (e.g., Vaiano and Pasin), as those references allegedly show zero contact.

5. Relief Requested

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