PTAB

IPR2016-01107

Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. f'real Foods, LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Rinseable Splash Shield and Method of Use
  • Brief Description: The ’662 patent discloses a method and apparatus for mixing beverages, such as milkshakes and smoothies, which incorporates a rinsable splash shield. The invention is directed at preventing ingredients from splashing out of the mixing vessel and providing a mechanism to clean the shield between uses to avoid cross-contamination of flavors.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claim 21 is obvious over Neilson, 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 taught every element of the challenged method claim. Neilson disclosed the foundational beverage mixing machine with a lid (splash shield) that engages a receptacle to prevent splashing during operation. Kelly taught a blending machine with a dedicated splash shield and an adjustable spray nozzle (device 56) specifically for cleaning internal components, including the shield, between uses to prevent flavor carry-over. Miller taught a reusable tubular sleeve (splash shield) that is explicitly removed from the beverage container after mixing so the container can be served to a customer while the sleeve is washed for reuse, thereby teaching the step of isolating the vessel from the rinsing fluid.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would combine the teachings of these references to solve known problems in the art. A POSITA would incorporate Kelly’s spray nozzle into Neilson’s machine to achieve the predictable result of improved sanitation and efficient cleaning of the splash shield. Furthermore, it would have been an obvious, common-sense step to incorporate Miller's teaching of separating the prepared beverage from the cleaning process to prevent contamination, a primary concern in food service.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. The combination involved applying known cleaning techniques (Kelly's nozzle, Miller's isolation step) to a conventional blending machine (Neilson) to achieve the predictable results of improved hygiene and prevention of flavor contamination.

Ground 2: 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 (as established in the ’662 patent specification and prosecution history of the parent ’150 patent), Kelly (Patent 4,740,088), and Miller (Application # 2002/0048626).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that the Patent Owner admitted in the patent's specification and through the use of Jepson-style claims in the parent patent that most elements of claim 21 were already well-known. This "Admitted Prior Art" included a mixing machine with a holder, a vessel, a rotatable mixing element, and a splash shield. Petitioner argued that the only limitations not explicitly admitted as prior art were "a nozzle oriented towards the splash shield" and the step of "isolating the vessel from the rinsing fluid." These remaining limitations were taught directly by Kelly (spray nozzle for cleaning) and Miller (removing the container before washing the shield).
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was identical to Ground 1. A POSITA would be motivated by the desire for improved cleanliness and prevention of flavor transfer between batches to apply the known cleaning solutions from Kelly and Miller to the base machine acknowledged in the Applicant's Admitted Prior Art. This combination represented a simple application of known solutions to a known device to obtain predictable results.
    • Key Aspects: This ground heavily relied on establishing the scope of the prior art through the Patent Owner's own statements during prosecution and in the patent itself, effectively arguing that the Patent Owner conceded the novelty of only a very narrow set of features, which were themselves disclosed in other prior art.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed a construction for the key claim term "isolating the vessel from the rinsing fluid" that was central to its obviousness arguments.
  • Petitioner argued the term should be construed to mean "separating the cup from the rinsing fluid area." Petitioner noted this construction aligns with the Patent Owner's own proposed construction in related district court litigation and could include an operator simply removing the cup from the machine.
  • The importance of this construction was to frame the claimed step not as a novel technical feature, but as the routine, common-sense action of removing a finished drink before cleaning the machine, a practice Petitioner asserted was already well-established and obvious.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested that the Board institute an inter partes review of claim 21 of Patent 7,520,662 and cancel the claim as unpatentable.