PTAB

IPR2016-00352

Thorley Industries LLC v. Kolcraft Enterprises Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Play Yards and Method of Operating the Same
  • Brief Description: The ’180 patent relates to a portable play yard for infants. Its purported novelty lies in the attachment mechanism, where a flexible enclosure is coupled to corner posts using "corner beads" that are received into channels defined by the posts, as opposed to conventional methods like sleeves that wrap around the posts.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Mariol and Pasin - Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-18 are obvious over Mariol in view of Pasin.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mariol (4,985,948) and Pasin (6,004,182).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Mariol disclosed all limitations of the independent claims except for the "corner bead" attachment mechanism. Mariol taught a conventional collapsible play yard with a frame, posts, and a flexible enclosure attached via corner sleeves that wrap around the posts. Petitioner argued that Pasin, which relates to temporary structures for children's amusement (e.g., forts, tents), taught the missing element. Pasin disclosed using rod formations ("beads") at the corners of flexible panels that are seated into enlarged receptacle areas ("channels") in frame members to secure the panels.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Mariol and Pasin by making a simple substitution of one known attachment method (Mariol's corner sleeves) for another known and functionally equivalent method (Pasin's bead-in-channel). This substitution would achieve the predictable result of attaching a flexible enclosure to a frame. The motivation was strengthened by the fact that both references are in the analogous field of juvenile products.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying a known attachment technique from Pasin to the known play yard structure of Mariol to achieve a predictable and desired function.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Mariol and Stoeckler - Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-18 are obvious over Mariol in view of Stoeckler.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mariol (4,985,948) and Stoeckler (7,063,096).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Similar to the first ground, Petitioner relied on Mariol to teach the base play yard structure. Stoeckler was introduced to supply the missing "corner bead" limitation. Stoeckler, directed to collapsible tent structures, explicitly disclosed fabric side covers having an "edge bead or flange or keder-profile" that is held within a "channel or groove" in the tent's corner posts. Petitioner argued this mechanism directly corresponds to the claimed "corner bead" attachment.
    • Motivation to Combine: The primary motivation was again the simple substitution of Mariol's corner sleeves with Stoeckler's well-known bead-in-channel technique. Petitioner further argued that Stoeckler provided additional motivation by teaching that its bead attachment method offered aesthetic and structural advantages over prior art, which would have encouraged a POSITA to apply it to improve the design of Mariol's play yard.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in this combination because it involved replacing one fabric attachment system with another known to be strong and aesthetically pleasing, yielding the predictable outcome of a securely attached enclosure.

Ground 3: Anticipation by Tharalson - Claims 7 and 8 are anticipated by Tharalson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tharalson (5,845,349).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Tharalson, which discloses a convertible playpen, anticipated every limitation of claims 7 and 8. Tharalson was alleged to teach a movable frame, a flexible enclosure, and at least one post. Critically, Petitioner asserted that Tharalson disclosed the claimed attachment mechanism. Tharalson's design included a "male section" with an "elongate projection" (the claimed "bead") that was "threaded into" and retained in an "open channel" of a corresponding "female section" located on a vertical corner rail (the claimed "post") to couple the enclosure to the frame. Petitioner also mapped Tharalson's disclosure to the dependent claim 8 limitation of the enclosure extending between lower and upper frames.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on Mariol in view of Rexroad (6,076,448) and Johnston (3,875,623). Further obviousness challenges against claims 5 and 15 were asserted by adding Hartenstine (6,510,570) to the primary combinations.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Corner Bead": Petitioner argued that this term, not explicitly defined in the patent, should be given its plain meaning of a "bead at a corner." "Bead" was construed as "a projecting rim, band, or molding." This construction was crucial for Petitioner's argument, as it allowed the term to read on the various rod-like structures and welted edges disclosed in the secondary prior art references (Pasin, Stoeckler, etc.).
  • "Enclosure": Petitioner proposed the plain meaning of "something that encloses," arguing that the term does not require the structure to be a continuous member or to enclose a space when it is detached from the play yard's frame. This construction supported the argument that the fabric panels in the prior art constituted the claimed "enclosure."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of Patent 9,027,180 as unpatentable.