PTAB

IPR2016-01107

Hamilton Beach Brands Inc v. F'Real Foods LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Rinseable Splash Shield and Method of Use
  • Brief Description: The ’662 patent relates to blending machines for making frozen beverages, such as milkshakes and smoothies. The technology focuses on a method for rinsing a splash shield to prevent splashing during mixing and to clean the shield between uses, thereby avoiding cross-contamination of ingredients.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Neilson, Kelly, and Miller - Claim 21 is obvious over Neilson in view of Kelly and Miller.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Neilson (Patent 5,439,289), Kelly (Patent 4,740,088), and Miller (Application # 2002/0048626).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of these references teaches every limitation of claim 21. Neilson was asserted to disclose the base mixing machine, including a holder for a vessel, a rotatable mixing element, and a lid that functions as a splash shield to cover the vessel's opening during operation. Kelly was cited for its disclosure of blending machines with various splash shields and, critically, a spray nozzle device for cleaning "all inside surfaces of the enclosure" between batches to ensure sanitary conditions. Miller was presented as teaching the final claimed steps: it discloses a reusable tubular sleeve (a splash shield) that is removed from the beverage container after blending, and the container is served to the customer. The sleeve is then washed for reuse, which Petitioner contended is a clear teaching of "isolating the vessel from the rinsing fluid" to prevent contamination of the final product.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the references to achieve the predictable result of a sanitary, efficient blending machine. The primary motivation would be to prevent flavor cross-contamination between different beverage orders and to maintain general cleanliness, a well-understood and strong incentive in food-service equipment design. A POSITA would logically apply the known cleaning techniques from Kelly (spray nozzle) and Miller (isolating the vessel before washing the shield) to a conventional mixing machine like Neilson's.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in making this combination. The integration involves applying known cleaning elements and methods to a standard mixing apparatus for their intended and well-understood purposes, yielding no unexpected results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Admitted Prior Art, Kelly, and Miller - Claim 21 is obvious over Applicant's Admitted Prior Art in view of Kelly and Miller.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Applicant's Admitted Prior Art (APA) from the ’662 patent's specification and the prosecution history of its parent patent, Kelly (Patent 4,740,088), and Miller (Application # 2002/0048626).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the Patent Owner admitted in the ’662 patent's specification and through the use of a Jepson-style claim in a parent application that most of the claimed elements were well-known in the prior art. This APA established the baseline of a mixing machine with a vessel holder, a rotatable mixing element, and a splash shield. Petitioner argued the only limitations not covered by the APA were "a nozzle oriented towards the splash shield" and the method step of "directing rinsing fluid onto the splash shield... while isolating the vessel from the rinsing fluid." These remaining limitations, Petitioner argued, are expressly taught by the combination of Kelly, which discloses a spray nozzle for cleaning shields, and Miller, which teaches separating the shield from the beverage container for washing.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine Kelly and Miller with the APA is the simple and obvious goal of improving a known device. A POSITA, starting with the baseline machine acknowledged in the APA, would naturally look to known methods to improve sanitation and efficiency. Adding the spray nozzle from Kelly and incorporating the isolation step from Miller would be a straightforward design choice to create a machine that is easier to clean, yielding the predictable benefit of preventing ingredient carryover.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be highly predictable, as the modification involves adding conventional cleaning components and process steps to a conventional blending machine to achieve the expected outcome of improved hygiene.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed a construction for the key limitation "isolating the vessel from the rinsing fluid."
    • Proposed Construction: "separating the cup from the rinsing fluid area."
    • Significance: Petitioner argued this construction is critical because it reflects a common-sense, non-inventive action that was well-known in the art, as exemplified by Miller. By construing the term this way, the step becomes nothing more than removing the finished drink before washing the machine components, an obvious step to prevent contaminating the beverage with cleaning fluid. This construction supports the argument that the claimed method was not a patentable advance over the prior art.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claim 21 of the ’662 patent as unpatentable.