PTAB

IPR2016-00536

Munchkin Inc v. Skip Hop Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: BATH SPOUT COVER
  • Brief Description: The ’653 patent discloses a child safety device designed to fit over a bathtub spout to protect children from injury. The device comprises a body structure with a receiving area for the spout and a strap for securing the cover to the spout.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Thorne, Lerner, and Daniels - Claims 12-14 are obvious over Thorne in view of Lerner and Daniels.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Thorne (Application # 2007/0130688), Lerner (Patent 4,709,429), and Daniels (Application # 2007/0175531).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Thorne, a primary reference for a strap-on bath spout cover, disclosed most limitations of independent claim 12, including the body structure, receiving area, and securing strap. Petitioner argued that Thorne’s elongated void did not extend along substantially an entire length of the upper portion. To supply this limitation, Petitioner pointed to Lerner, which teaches a bath spout cover with a void that is elongated along the entire length to accommodate various shower diverter valve positions. To supply the limitation of an aperture in the side portion for receiving the strap, Petitioner relied on Daniels, which discloses a water spout extender secured by a strap that passes through apertures on the side portions of the device.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine Thorne with Lerner to achieve the benefit of "universal acceptance" with the largest variety of bath spouts, a goal explicitly taught by Thorne itself. A POSITA would have looked to other child safety and water spout devices like Daniels for a known, satisfactory, and low-cost method of attaching a strap. The combination of familiar elements would yield only predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Thorne's void as taught by Lerner to improve its versatility and in incorporating the simple, known strap attachment method from Daniels.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Thorne, Lister, and Morris - Claims 15-21 are obvious over Thorne in view of Lister and Morris.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Thorne (Application # 2007/0130688), Lister (Patent 5,599,063), and Morris (Patent 3,910,634).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner again used Thorne as the base reference disclosing the main body structure of the bath spout cover. To meet the limitations of independent claim 15 requiring an aperture and a strap traversing it, Petitioner turned to Lister. Lister, which discloses a baby bathing chair, teaches passing a strap through apertures in the side portions to secure the device. Because Lister's strap does not teach an enlarged end portion to prevent it from pulling through the aperture, Petitioner relied on Morris. Morris, a child safety seat, discloses a strap with an enlarged end portion that is "too large to be pulled through the slot," thereby holding the strap in place. Dependent claims reciting elastomeric materials and specific Shore A hardness values were argued to be disclosed or rendered obvious by Thorne's teaching of using soft, cushioned materials.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to securely fasten the Thorne device would look to analogous arts, such as other child safety and bathtub devices. Lister and Morris provide well-known solutions for securing straps. A POSITA would combine Lister's use of apertures with Morris's enlarged strap end to create a simple, low-cost, and reliable fastening mechanism for the Thorne cover.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that combining these known fastening techniques from related safety products would be a straightforward application of familiar elements to achieve the predictable result of a securely attached spout cover.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on Thorne/Lerner/Lister (for claims 12-14) and Thorne/Daniels (for claims 15-21), relying on similar design modification theories and motivations to combine.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "end of the strap": Petitioner argued that while the ’653 patent specification discloses strap ends that are enlarged or angularly offset, the Patent Owner had asserted a broader construction in litigation that does not require any enlargement or offset. For the purposes of the IPR, Petitioner accepted the Patent Owner's broader construction under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, arguing the claims were obvious even under this construction.
  • "opening adapted to fit over a bath spout shower diverter": Petitioner contended this language, found in claim 14, does not require the opening to be separate from the "elongated void" limitation. Based on the patent's figures and description, the elongated void itself is what provides access to the diverter, so the features are integrated.
  • "elastomeric material": Petitioner argued this term should be construed to encompass deformable materials like "rubbers, plastics, or the like," as explicitly described in the ’653 patent's specification.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 12-21 of the ’653 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.