PTAB

IPR2017-00087

Campbell Soup Co v. Gamon Plus Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Multi-Chute Gravity Feed Dispenser Display
  • Brief Description: The ’111 patent discloses a dispenser and display rack system for storing and displaying cylindrical products, like cans, on store shelving. The system uses multiple gravity-fed chutes arranged to dispense products for consumer access.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over ‘751 publication and Deffner - Claims 1-16 are obvious over the ‘751 publication in view of Deffner.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The ‘751 publication (Application # 2004/0011751) and Deffner (Patent 4,105,126).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the ’751 publication, which is prior art from the patent owner Gamon, disclosed every element of independent claims 1 and 8 except for the final limitation: a "rail set" including a first rail with a first product support surface and a second rail with a second product support surface offset from and below the first. Petitioner asserted that Deffner taught this missing element by disclosing a gravity-feed display rack with plural rail sets designed to accommodate cans of different heights, where a first rail supports taller cans and a second, offset rail supports shorter cans. The dependent claims were argued to be obvious as they recited conventional features (e.g., specific dimensions, materials) that were either disclosed in the art or represented mere design choices.
    • Motivation to Combine (for 35 U.S.C. §103 grounds): Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the references because they are from the same field of endeavor—gravity feed dispensers for retail stores. A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate the rail sets from Deffner into the dispenser of the ’751 publication to achieve the known benefit of accommodating cylindrical products of different heights, which was a predictable improvement.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as combining the known rail set technology of Deffner with the dispenser of the ’751 publication was merely the application of a known technique to improve a similar device, yielding a predictable result.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Weichselbaum and Nesso - Claims 17-20, 25, and 26 are obvious over Weichselbaum in view of Nesso.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Weichselbaum (Patent 2,382,191) and Nesso (EP Patent No. 0490693). An alternative ground for claims 18 and 19 added Rogers (Patent 3,304,141).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Weichselbaum taught a dispensing device for cylindrical goods with many features of independent claim 17, including first and second chutes with offset stop structures. However, Petitioner argued Weichselbaum lacked a second upper chute with its own loading opening and a movable door covering the loading openings. These missing features were allegedly supplied by Nesso, which disclosed a compact, refrigerated gravity-feed dispenser with two nested chutes, front loading openings, and a hinged door for covering those openings that could also be used for advertising.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine the teachings of Weichselbaum and Nesso to increase the product capacity of the Weichselbaum dispenser within the same shelf footprint by adding Nesso’s second upper chute. Additionally, a POSITA would be motivated to add Nesso’s hinged door to the Weichselbaum design to provide a surface for labeling and advertising, a common goal in retail displays.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination was argued to be a simple application of known techniques to improve a similar device, yielding the predictable result of a higher-capacity dispenser with an advertising surface.

Ground 5: Obviousness over Weichselbaum, Nesso, and Rogers - Claims 27, 28, 33, and 34 are obvious over Weichselbaum in view of Nesso, alone or further in view of Rogers.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Weichselbaum (Patent 2,382,191), Nesso (EP Patent No. 0490693), and Rogers (Patent 3,304,141).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that independent claim 27 was substantially a combination of limitations found in claims 17, 18, and 20. As such, the combination of Weichselbaum and Nesso was asserted to teach most limitations for the same reasons articulated in Ground 2. Petitioner contended that the remaining key limitation—a sufficient offset distance between stop structures to allow a removed product to be replaced on top of the forwardmost product in the lower chute—was taught by either Weichselbaum itself or by Rogers, which explicitly taught offset chutes to allow easy access and product replacement.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): The motivation to combine Weichselbaum and Nesso was the same as in Ground 2. A POSITA would be further motivated to incorporate or modify the chute offset as taught by Rogers to improve user access to the forwardmost product in the lower chute, a known issue in such dispensers.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on the Weichselbaum/Nesso combination, further modified by other references. These included adding: Mellion or Schwimmer for product positioning protrusions (Claims 21, 22, 24, 31, 32, 35); Luster for defining steeper slopes on lower support portions (Claims 23, 29); and Knott for adding openings in the side panels for visibility (Claim 30).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "rails" (Claim 1): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "any surface sufficient to form the lower support surface of a chute." This broad construction was intended to encompass the uninterrupted flat surfaces shown in prior art like Northcutt, which the Patent Owner had distinguished during prosecution by arguing Northcutt lacked rail sets with offset surfaces.
  • "the stop structure of said second chute being ... offset rearwardly..." (Claim 17): Petitioner proposed this be construed to mean "at least a portion of the stop structure of the second chute is offset by a distance greater than the diameter of the cylindrical products from at least a portion of the stop structure of the first chute." This construction was argued to be necessary as the patent specification did not define the limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-35 of the ’111 patent as unpatentable.