PTAB

IPR2016-00445

Free Flow Packaging Intl Inc v. Automated Packaging Systems

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Web and Method for Making Fluid Filled Units
  • Brief Description: The ’994 patent describes a web of preformed, inflatable packaging cushions, known as "dunnage units." The purported invention is a structure where adjacent units are connected by lines of perforations that create a "gap" between the units upon inflation, which allegedly simplifies separation and reduces undesirable stresses caused by "foreshortening."

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Peper and Titchenal - Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8 are obvious over Peper in view of Titchenal.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Peper (Application # 10/295,625) and Titchenal (Patent 3,791,573).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Peper disclosed nearly all elements of the challenged claims, including a web of inflatable dunnage units designed to solve problems with "foreshortening" and "buckling" of the inflation header. Peper accomplished this using a central "cut" between adjacent units that forms a gap upon inflation to relieve strain. Petitioner contended that Peper differed from the claims only in that it used a solid cut rather than perforations. Titchenal was introduced to supply this missing element, as it taught a chain of plastic bags with lines of weakness comprising slits and perforations. These lines of weakness in Titchenal were designed to form a gap as the bags "bloom out" during filling, which facilitates separation and creates a smooth, wrinkle-free seal.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine these references because both addressed the same problem: the automated production of separable, inflatable plastic bags while managing inflation-related issues like distortion and buckling. A POSA seeking to improve Peper's system would have been motivated to replace its simple cut with Titchenal's well-understood use of perforations to create a more robust and reliable line of weakness and separation.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSA would have a reasonable expectation of success because combining the teachings was a predictable application of a known technique (Titchenal's perforations) to a similar device (Peper's dunnage units) to achieve a known benefit (improved separation and inflation characteristics).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Fuss, Peper, and Titchenal - Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8 are obvious over Fuss in view of Peper and Titchenal.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fuss (Application # 09/765,064), Peper (Application # 10/295,625), and Titchenal (Patent 3,791,573).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented Fuss as the primary reference, arguing it disclosed the basic structure of the claimed invention: a web of pneumatically filled packing cushions made of two superposed layers, with transverse seals defining the pouches and lines of perforations for separation. Petitioner emphasized that during the ’994 patent’s prosecution history, the applicant effectively conceded that Fuss disclosed all claim elements except for the specific "gap forming lines." To remedy this deficiency, Petitioner argued that a POSA would look to Peper, which explicitly taught adding a central cut to dunnage units to form a gap upon inflation, thereby relieving strain and preventing buckling of the inflation header. The combination of Fuss's fundamental structure with Peper's gap-forming solution was argued to render the claims obvious. Titchenal was included as further evidence of the common use of perforations and slits to create gaps in webs of plastic bags.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was driven by the shared goal of all three references: automating the production of inflatable, sealed, and separable plastic bags. A POSA starting with the dunnage unit web in Fuss would recognize the known industry problems of unreliable inflation and buckling, which Fuss itself aimed to address. Peper provided an explicit solution to this exact problem in the same context (dunnage units). Therefore, a POSA would combine Fuss's structure with Peper's gap-forming feature to improve the reliability and consistency of inflation.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued success was highly predictable. The proposed modification involved incorporating a known feature (Peper's gap-forming cut) into a conventional product (Fuss's dunnage unit web) to solve a well-documented problem. The technologies were directly analogous and their combination presented no apparent technical hurdles.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8 of the ’994 patent as unpatentable.