Campbell Soup Co v. Gamon Plus Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: Unassigned
• Patent #: D621,645
• Filed: October 14, 2016
• Petitioner(s): Campbell Soup Company; Campbell Sales Company; and Trinity Manufacturing, L.L.C.
• Patent Owner(s): Gamon Plus, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: The sole claim

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Gravity Feed Dispenser Display
• Brief Description: The ’645 patent is a design patent for the ornamental features of a gravity feed dispenser. The claimed design, shown in solid lines, consists of the visible surface of a symmetrical, convex arcuate access door/label area and the visible surface of a cylindrical can located below it.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of the sole claim under 35 U.S.C. §102 over Linz

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Linz (Patent D405,622).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Linz discloses a design for a display rack that is substantially identical to the design claimed in the ’645 patent. Linz shows an access door with a symmetric, convex arcuate shape and a central apex extending forward, positioned above a receiving area for a cylindrical can. Petitioner contended that although Linz does not explicitly depict a can, the curved shape of the loading area and the bottom receiving area inherently disclose that the dispenser is designed for cylindrical cans.
  • Key Aspects: The core of the argument rested on the "ordinary observer test." Petitioner asserted that an ordinary observer, recognizing the inherent purpose of the Linz dispenser, would find its design with a can placed in it to be visually indistinguishable from the ’645 patent design.

Ground 2: Obviousness of the sole claim under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Linz alone or in view of Samways or Knott

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Linz (Patent D405,622) as a primary reference, optionally in view of Samways (G.B. Application # 2,303,624) or Knott (Patent D178,248).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that, to the extent Linz is not found to anticipate, the ’645 patent claim is obvious over Linz alone. Linz was presented as a suitable primary reference disclosing "basically the same" design characteristics, with any differences being de minimis. Alternatively, if Linz is considered not to inherently teach the presence of a can, Samways or Knott explicitly disclose displaying cylindrical cans in a similar dispenser.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to combine the explicit teaching of a can from Samways or Knott with the Linz dispenser. Petitioner argued the references are "so related" because they are in the same field and solve the same problem: dispensing cans from a gravity-fed rack. The motivation would be to simply use the Linz dispenser for its intended and obvious purpose.
  • Expectation of Success: Combining a can with the Linz dispenser would predictably result in the can rolling to the display shelf, yielding the claimed overall visual appearance.

Ground 3: Obviousness of the sole claim under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Abbate in view of Linz or Samways

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Abbate (Patent 4,909,578) as the primary reference, in view of Linz (Patent D405,622) or Samways (G.B. Application # 2,303,624).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Abbate discloses a display case with a flat access door and dispensing cylindrical cans below it, establishing it as a primary reference. However, Abbate's door is flat, not curved. Petitioner argued that Linz and Samways supply the missing feature: a symmetric, convex arcuate access door.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to combine the references because they are all in the same field of art (can dispensers) and solve the same problem. Specifically, a POSITA would modify the flat door of Abbate with the curved door from Linz or Samways to take advantage of the enhanced visibility for product labels that a curved surface provides.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that modifying the door shape is a simple substitution of one known design element for another, which would have yielded predictable results and the overall appearance of the ’645 patent design.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional challenges, including anticipation over Samways (G.B. Application # 2,303,624) and obviousness challenges based on various combinations of Samways, Linz, Abbate, Primiano (Patent 6,068,142), and Knott, all relying on similar design modification theories and the "ordinary observer" or POSITA perspective.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner proposed that the sole claim of the ’645 patent should be construed based on the solid lines in its single drawing, in light of the prosecution history of related applications.
• The proposed construction defines the claimed ornamental design as: (1) An access door/label area having a symmetrical, convex arcuate surface with a centered apex extending forward, and (2) a cylindrical can located below the access door/label area.
• This construction is critical to the Petitioner's arguments because it explicitly disclaims the surrounding structure of the dispenser, including the edges and borders of the access door, which are shown in broken lines. This narrows the scope of the design to only the two specified surfaces, making it more susceptible to anticipation and obviousness challenges from prior art showing those specific features.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner implicitly argued against discretionary denial under §325(d) by highlighting that the primary prior art references relied upon in the petition were not applied by the examiner during prosecution.
• The petition noted that the application leading to the ’645 patent was allowed in the first instance without any office action. This fact was used to suggest that the examiner did not conduct a thorough search or have the most relevant prior art available for consideration, justifying a new review based on the stronger art presented in the petition.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested that the Board institute an inter partes review and cancel the sole claim of Patent D621,645 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103.