PTAB

IPR2016-01526

ThUnder Box Inc v. Cascade Designs Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Partitioned Inflatable Body
  • Brief Description: The ’952 patent discloses a partitioned inflatable body, such as a self-inflating mattress or seat cushion. The invention features a fluid impervious intermediate panel that divides a primary inflatable enclosure into at least two separate chambers, with the perimeter portions of the intermediate panel joined to the inner surfaces of the enclosure's major panels.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lea and Nishino - Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, and 11 are obvious over Lea in view of Nishino.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lea (Patent 5,552,205) and Nishino (Patent 5,659,908).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lea taught all the fundamental features of a self-inflating, edge-sealed inflatable body, including first and second major panels forming an enclosure, a compressible foam batting core that also serves as a tensile member, and a sealable valve. Petitioner asserted that Nishino taught the key missing element: partitioning an analogous edge-sealed inflatable body (an "air mat") into multiple independent air chambers using a fluid-impervious intermediate panel. Nishino further disclosed attaching the intermediate panel to the inner surfaces of the major panels and providing separate valves for each chamber. The combination of Lea's self-inflating body with Nishino's partitioning system would allegedly render all limitations of independent claims 1 and 11 obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the teachings to create an inflatable body with customizable inflation zones. Nishino explicitly stated that its partitions create separate "blocks" that can be inflated to different pressures to suit different parts of the human body. Petitioner argued this provided a clear reason to apply Nishino's known partitioning technique to Lea's self-inflating mattress to gain this functional benefit.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references related to the same field of edge-sealed inflatable structures. Applying Nishino's partition to Lea's body was described as a straightforward application of a known technique to a known product to achieve a predictable improvement.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Lea, Nishino, and Schornstheimer or Hall - Claims 9, 10, 12-14, and 16 are obvious over Lea, Nishino, and Schornstheimer or Hall.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lea (’205 patent), Nishino (’908 patent), and either Schornstheimer (Patent 3,070,481) or Hall (Patent 6,009,925).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Ground 1 to address dependent claims requiring the use of a "thermoplastic" for joining the panels. Petitioner argued that using a thermoplastic was inherent in Nishino, which disclosed constructing its air mat from vinyl chloride sheets and joining them via welding. Schornstheimer and Hall were cited as additional evidence to explicitly teach that vinyl chloride is a thermoplastic material and that high-frequency welding, as used in the art, is a thermoplastic joining process. This combination allegedly met the limitations of claims requiring thermoplastic joining.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was to use a well-known, efficient, and reliable manufacturing method for constructing the partitioned inflatable body. Since Nishino already taught welding its vinyl chloride panels, a POSITA would naturally understand this to be a thermoplastic process. Schornstheimer and Hall merely confirmed this common knowledge, providing further reason to use a thermoplastic to join the panels in the proposed Lea/Nishino combination.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected as thermoplastic welding was a standard and proven method for fabricating inflatable articles from flexible sheet materials, as evidenced by the prior art.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Lea, Nishino, and Switlik - Claims 17, 18, and 20 are obvious over Lea, Nishino, and Switlik.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lea (’205 patent), Nishino (’908 patent), and Switlik (Patent 6,190,486).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claims reciting specific material coatings and structures, such as a "low melting point urethane" coating (claim 17) and a laminate structure of fabric coated with high and low melting point urethane (claim 20). Petitioner argued that Lea taught using a low-melting point thermoplastic layer for bonding. Switlik was introduced to teach that urethane (specifically polyether polyurethane) is a suitable material for creating such low-melt layers in "dual melt" films for inflatable articles. The combination of Lea's general teaching of dual-melt layers with Switlik's specific disclosure of urethane for that purpose would allegedly render the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to use the specific urethane materials from Switlik in the Lea/Nishino device to leverage the known advantages of dual-melt film construction. This technique allowed for strong thermoplastic welds at the joints (using the low-melt layer) while preserving the structural integrity of the main panel surfaces (the high-melt layer), a well-understood manufacturing benefit.
    • Expectation of Success: Using urethane-coated, dual-melt films was an established technique in the art of inflatable devices. Therefore, applying this known material technology to the combined Lea/Nishino structure would have been a predictable and successful endeavor.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued for a Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the terms "first surface perimeter portion of the intermediate panel" and "second surface perimeter portion of the intermediate panel."
  • Petitioner's proposed construction was "a surface of the [first/second] perimeter portion of the intermediate panel." This construction was asserted to be consistent with the specification while avoiding the improper importation of limitations, such as requiring the surfaces to be on opposite sides of the intermediate panel. This broader construction was central to Petitioner's argument that Nishino's method of attachment met the claim limitations.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-14, 16-18, and 20 of Patent 7,480,952 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.