PTAB

IPR2016-00841

Homeland Housewares LLC v. HuiYang Allan Plastic & Electric Industries Co Ltd

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Multiple Drive System For Food Processor and Mixer
Brief Description: The ’627 patent discloses a multiple drive system for a food processor that uses a single motor and a planetary gear system to operate three distinct drive outlets simultaneously, with each outlet rotating at a different speed. The system is designed with a first outlet driven directly by a motor-coupled shaft, a second outlet driven by a first set of planetary gears, and a third outlet driven by a second set of planetary gears.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Brezovnik (Patent 6,164,812).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Brezovnik discloses an essentially identical multi-drive food processor with a planetary gear system. Independent claims 1 and 10 were allegedly met because Brezovnik teaches an electric food processor with at least three concentric output drives operating at different speeds. Brezovnik’s first "coupling bush" (first drive outlet) is driven by a central output shaft rotating at motor speed. Its third "coupling bush" (second drive outlet) is driven by a first set of planetary gears at a slower speed, and its fourth "coupling bush" (third drive outlet) is driven by a second set of planetary gears at an even slower speed. Petitioner asserted that Brezovnik’s components, including its sun gears, planet gears, planet carriers, and ring gear, directly map to the limitations of the challenged claims, including the surrounding arrangement of the outlets.
- Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that any minor differences, such as Brezovnik disclosing four outlets instead of three or placing the motor on the side instead of underneath, were immaterial to patentability as the core gear mechanism was the same.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Brezovnik (Patent 6,164,812) and Liang (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN101731960A).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground primarily addressed any patentable distinction asserted based on the motor's location. Petitioner argued that while Brezovnik teaches a side-mounted motor, Liang explicitly discloses a food processor with a motor placed directly underneath the planetary gear system, with the motor shaft serving as the central drive shaft. Brezovnik was asserted to teach the specific two-layered planetary gear arrangement with concentric, surrounding outlets, while Liang taught the claimed motor placement.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to leverage Brezovnik's sophisticated gear arrangement with Liang's more conventional and compact motor placement. Petitioner argued Liang provides the explicit motivation to modify Brezovnik’s design by showing that placing the motor underneath the gear system was a known and advantageous design choice for food processors.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because changing the motor's location from the side to the bottom is a simple design choice that would not alter the fundamental operation of Brezovnik’s planetary gear system.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Liang (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN101731960A).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Liang, on its own, anticipates many of the claims. Liang was shown to disclose a multi-drive system with a motor and central shaft (motor shaft 22) that drives a first outlet (spline hub 24) at motor speed. A first planetary gear set drives a second outlet (ring gear 14) at a reduced speed, and a second planetary gear set drives a third outlet (planet gear arm 19) at a further reduced speed. Petitioner contended that for claims where the gear interaction differed slightly from Liang's disclosure (e.g., claim 5, where the '627 patent's arm drives the second sun gear), a broad construction of "coupled with" would still result in anticipation. Alternatively, these claims were obvious over Liang in view of Brezovnik, which explicitly discloses the claimed arm-to-sun-gear drive mechanism.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including claims 1-18 being obvious over Brezovnik in view of Liang and Beaudet (Patent 6,189,441), where Beaudet was cited to further support that motor placement is a simple design choice.

"Coupled to" or "Coupled with": Petitioner proposed these terms mean "linked, accompanied, or associated, with or without touching." This construction was argued to be critical because it encompasses indirect connections, allowing a prior art reference to meet a limitation even if intermediary components exist between the two claimed elements.
"Driven Directly": For claim 9, Petitioner proposed "driven directly" means the outlet is driven by the motor without an intervening change in driving speed, not necessarily without any physical intermediary. This construction was necessary to argue that Brezovnik's first outlet, which is driven by a central shaft connected to the motor and rotates at the same speed, meets the "driven directly" limitation despite the presence of the shaft.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of Patent 8,382,627 as unpatentable.