PTAB

IPR2016-01065

KSP Co Ltd v. Guala Pack Spa

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Cap with Guarantee Seal
  • Brief Description: The ’757 patent discloses a threaded cap for a container featuring a tamper-indicating guarantee seal. The seal includes breakable portions that fracture upon opening and a non-frangible safety portion that keeps the broken seal attached to the cap.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3 and 10 are obvious over Julian in view of Marshall

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Julian (Patent 5,056,675) and Marshall (Patent 5,853,095).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Julian, a reference not considered during prosecution, discloses nearly all elements of independent claim 1. Julian teaches a cap with a tamper-indicating band, frangible webs, a permanent tether (safety portion), and an internally threaded inner annular wall. To address claim 1's requirement for a "plurality of guarantee portions," Petitioner asserted that Marshall explicitly teaches this feature. During prosecution, the Patent Owner amended the claims to add limitations related to the inner annular wall (elements 1f-1h) to overcome a rejection over Marshall; Petitioner contended that Julian explicitly discloses these very limitations, thus curing the deficiency of Marshall. Dependent claims 2, 3, and 10 are allegedly met by Julian’s disclosure of the permanent tether connecting the seal to the inner annular wall and the resulting loop-like configuration after opening.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the references as they relate to the analogous art of container closures. Marshall disclosed that dividing a tamper band into multiple portions is an improvement over single-band designs. A POSITA would have been motivated to apply Marshall's known technique of using a divided tamper band to improve the functionality of a similar device like Julian, resulting in a more reliable indication of tampering.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining Marshall’s known divided-band feature with Julian's cap structure was a predictable variation of existing technology with a high expectation of success.

Ground 2: Claims 4-9 are obvious over Julian in view of Marshall and Tacchella

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Julian (Patent 5,056,675), Marshall (Patent 5,853,095), and Tacchella (U.S. Design Patent No. D467,501).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Julian and Marshall combination for claim 1 and adds Tacchella to address dependent claims 4-9. Petitioner asserted Tacchella’s ornamental design for a cap discloses the specific structural features of these dependent claims. Tacchella allegedly shows a handling portion extending annularly about an inner wall (claim 4), the lower edge of the handling portion extending externally to the guarantee seal (claim 5), and tongues connecting the handling portion to the inner wall (claims 6-9). Petitioner argued that modifying Tacchella's six tongues to the claimed four (claim 8) is a mere design choice to save material and cost.
    • Motivation to Combine: All references are in the analogous art of container closures. A POSITA would combine the functional cap of Julian/Marshall with the ergonomic design of Tacchella to provide a larger, easier-to-grip handling portion. This modification would improve usability and leverage for opening the container, which is a well-known mechanical advantage and a predictable improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: Incorporating the structural and aesthetic features of Tacchella into the tamper-evident cap of Julian/Marshall would have been a straightforward design modification.

Ground 3: Claims 13-16 are obvious over Julian in view of Marshall and Kimura

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Julian (Patent 5,056,675), Marshall (Patent 5,853,095), and Kimura (Patent 4,669,124).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses independent claims 13 and 15 and their dependents. Petitioner argued that the combination of Julian and Marshall teaches the majority of the cap-related limitations, as established in the prior grounds. Kimura is added to supply the remaining elements, specifically teaching a "coupling portion provided with a tubular straw" (claim 13a/15c) for a closing device. Petitioner also contended that Kimura’s flanges are analogous to the "welding walls" recited in claim 14 and that its bag-shaped container made of heat-sealed resin film meets the "deformable" container limitation of claim 16.
    • Motivation to Combine: The references are all directed to tamper-indicating closures for containers. A POSITA would combine the tamper-proof cap of Julian/Marshall with Kimura’s straw and deformable pouch design to create a product (e.g., a beverage pouch for children) where the contents are easily accessed via a straw and fully dispensed by squeezing the container. This combination would leverage known technologies to create a commercially desirable product.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining a known cap type with a known container and dispensing system (pouch with straw) would have been a predictable integration of components with a high expectation of success.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claims 1-3 and 10 are obvious over Julian alone. Petitioner also asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 11-12 based on the combination of Julian, Marshall, and Vaughan (Application # 2005/0011911), which teaches adding safety passages or airways to a cap to prevent choking.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-16 of the ’757 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.