PTAB

IPR2016-00719

Bedgear LLC v. Sheex Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Bed Sheet from Performance Fabric
  • Brief Description: The ’309 patent discloses bed sheets and methods of making them from circular knit "performance fabrics" containing elastic fibers such as spandex. The invention purports to solve the problem of such fabrics sagging and losing integrity when knit wider than approximately 72.5 inches by joining two or more narrower fabric portions to create a finished sheet at least 90 inches wide.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-5, 7, 9-21, 23, 25-32, 34, 36-50, 52, and 54 are obvious over the Admitted Prior Art in view of Haggerty.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Admitted Prior Art (“APA”) from the ’309 patent specification and prosecution history, and Haggerty (Patent 7,200,883).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the APA, consisting of the patent’s own admissions, teaches nearly all elements of the invention, including the use of high-gauge circular knitting machines to produce performance fabrics containing spandex. Petitioner asserted that the claimed properties—such as a tendency to sag and lose integrity if knit wider than 72.5 inches—are inherent characteristics of the spandex-based fabrics disclosed in the APA. Haggerty was cited to supply the remaining limitations: the construction of "bi-sectional" bed sheets wider than 90 inches (e.g., for king-size beds) by joining separate fabric portions, including a fabric area where the majority of a user's body rests.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the teachings because both the APA and Haggerty are directed to bedding technology. A POSITA would be motivated to use the well-known performance fabric described in the APA within the multi-section bed sheet construction taught by Haggerty to achieve a predictable result: a large bed sheet incorporating the desirable comfort and moisture-wicking properties of performance fabrics.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying known fabric-joining techniques to a known type of fabric to create a larger sheet, a simple and predictable process.

Ground 2: Claims 1-5, 7, 9-21, 23, 25-32, 34, 36-50, 52, and 54 are obvious over the Admitted Prior Art in view of Haggerty, further in view of Fleissner.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: APA, Haggerty (Patent 7,200,883), and Fleissner (Patent 3,696,475).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative, arguing that if the sag and integrity-loss limitations are not considered inherent in the APA, then Fleissner explicitly teaches them. Fleissner describes finishing processes for knit fabrics and expressly identifies material sagging between "tentering chains" as a significant problem, particularly with wider fabrics. Fleissner teaches that this sag interferes with the finishing process by causing distortions, directly mapping to the claim limitations regarding sag interfering with finishing above a certain fabric width.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to manufacture the wide sheets of Haggerty using the performance fabric of the APA would have consulted a reference like Fleissner for information on standard finishing processes. Fleissner's explicit disclosure of sag-related problems in wide knit fabrics would have made it obvious that the elastic fabrics taught in the APA would exhibit the claimed properties, thus rendering the claimed subject matter obvious.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect the combination to work as Fleissner describes a known problem (sagging) in the exact type of process (finishing wide knit fabrics) that would be used for the fabrics of the APA.

Ground 3: Claims 1-5, 7, 9-21, 23, 25-32, 34, 36-50, 52, and 54 are obvious over Stewart in view of Fleissner.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Stewart (Application # 2005/0284189) and Fleissner (Patent 3,696,475).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Stewart, titled "Circular-Knit Bed Sheet," teaches nearly all limitations of the independent claims, as it discloses making bed sheets from circular-knit fabrics that incorporate spandex. Stewart further teaches that its fabrics can be used for a wide range of bed sizes, which a POSITA would understand to include standard king-size beds requiring sheets wider than 90 inches. As in Ground 2, Fleissner was used to explicitly teach the limitations related to fabric sag interfering with finishing processes at wider dimensions, supplementing Stewart's disclosure.
    • Motivation to Combine: Stewart teaches using "customary methods and equipment" for finishing its circular-knit fabrics. A POSITA would naturally look to a reference like Fleissner, which details such customary finishing machinery (tentering devices) and its associated challenges. This would have led the POSITA to Fleissner’s teachings on sag in wide fabrics, making the combination obvious.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be predictable because it involved applying a known solution (addressing sag as taught by Fleissner) to a known problem that arises when applying customary finishing techniques to the fabrics described by Stewart.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "performance man-made fiber ... having an elasticity ..." (Claims 1, 28): Petitioner proposed this term be interpreted as "a fabric with elastic fibers that would have too much sag and interfere with a finishing process if it is high-gauge circularly knit wider than 72.5 inches."
  • "a fabric that includes polyurethanepolyurea copolymer fiber ... in a proportion ..." (Claims 13, 40): Petitioner proposed this term be interpreted as "a fabric with spandex fibers that would lose their integrity if the fabric is knit wider than 72.5 inches."
  • Importance: These proposed constructions were central to Petitioner's argument that the claims merely recite the well-known, inherent properties of spandex-based performance fabrics, rather than a patentable invention.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-5, 7, 9-21, 23, 25-32, 34, 36-50, 52, and 54 of the ’309 patent as unpatentable.