PTAB

IPR2017-00262

GRowlerwerks Inc v. DrInk Tanks Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Systems for Storing Beverages
  • Brief Description: The ’670 patent discloses systems for storing and dispensing beverages, such as beer, from a reusable container. The invention centers on a beverage storage system comprising a vacuum-sealed metal vessel with a non-planar rim, a lid with a threaded portion and a gas inlet valve, and an annular elastomeric seal to create a seal between the lid and the vessel.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Olson, Rosbach, and Snead - Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 18, and 19 are obvious over Olson in view of Rosbach and Snead.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Olson (Application # 2008/0047922), Rosbach (Application # 2013/0032564), and Snead (Application # 2013/0319969).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Olson taught a basic beverage storage system with a metal bottle, a non-planar rim ("curl"), a threaded screw-on cap, and an annular seal. Rosbach taught substituting a standard container with a double-walled, vacuum-sealed metal vessel (a "thermal metal growler") to improve thermal protection for craft beer. Snead taught adding a gas inlet valve to a portable beverage container lid to re-pressurize and preserve carbonated beverages like beer, thereby preventing oxidation and de-carbonation. For independent claim 18, Petitioner argued Olson also disclosed the claimed seal channel and its configuration relative to the container neck.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Rosbach's vacuum-sealed vessel with Olson's system for the known benefit of improved thermal properties. A POSITA would further incorporate Snead's gas inlet valve into the combined system for the stated objective of preserving carbonation, as Snead's apparatus was explicitly designed to be retrofitted into any existing portable beverage container.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted the combination involved applying known technologies (vacuum insulation, gas valves) to a standard beverage container to achieve their predictable functions, resulting in a high expectation of success.

Ground 10: Obviousness over Olson, Rosbach, and Mociak - Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 10, 18, and 19 are obvious over Olson in view of Rosbach and Mociak.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Olson (Application # 2008/0047922), Rosbach (Application # 2013/0032564), and Mociak (Application # 2014/0262899).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was similar to Ground 1, relying on Olson for the base container and threaded lid and Rosbach for the vacuum-sealed body. It substituted Snead with Mociak as the source for the gas inlet valve. Petitioner asserted Mociak taught a recharging cap for growlers specifically to maintain carbonation and freshness, disclosing a gas injection valve (e.g., a Schrader valve) that could be incorporated into the cap.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine Olson and Rosbach remained the same. A POSITA would be motivated to add Mociak's recharging cap to the vacuum-insulated growler for the explicit and objective benefit of maintaining the carbonation and freshness of a beverage like beer, a problem that Mociak directly addressed.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that since Mociak taught using standard valve types (Schrader) for re-carbonating growlers, incorporating such a well-understood component into a container lid was a simple and predictable modification for a POSITA.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional obviousness challenges against various dependent claims by adding a fourth reference to the primary combinations. These included adding Arellano (Patent 6,651,852) for a removable pressure inlet fitting, Wissinger (Patent 5,918,761) for a beveled seal, Ash (Patent 5,199,609) or Hammond (Patent 7,131,560) for a dispensing device, Laib (Patent 9,114,911) for a handle retention element, and Russell (Patent 3,159,176), Windmiller (Application # 2008/0142421), or Wallace (Application # 2011/0151085) for specific valve types like umbrella or duckbill valves.

4. Key Technical Contentions

  • Priority Date Challenge: Petitioner contended that claims 1-17 of the ’670 patent were not entitled to their claimed priority date from February 2013 provisional applications. It was argued that the critical limitation of "a lid having a threaded portion" was not supported by the provisional applications and first appeared in the non-provisional application filed June 28, 2013. Similarly, Petitioner argued claims 18-19 were not entitled to priority because the "annular channel having a sidewall" was also not disclosed in the provisional applications. This later effective filing date makes additional prior art, such as Mociak, applicable to the claims.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-19 of Patent 9,156,670 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.