PTAB

IPR2017-00350

Fredman Bros Furniture Co Inc v. Bedgear LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Pillow With Gusset Of Open Cell Construction
  • Brief Description: The ’332 patent discloses a pillow comprising a first panel, a second panel, and a gusset joining the panels. The key inventive concept asserted is the use of a breathable or porous material for the gusset, such as 3D spacer fabric, that has a greater porosity than the material of the panels to allow for lateral ventilation and a cooling effect.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation and Obviousness over Rasmussen - Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11, 13, 15-20, 22-23, 27, and 29-34 are anticipated by or obvious over Rasmussen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Rasmussen (WO 2010/075294).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Rasmussen, which was not cited during prosecution, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims through two distinct but equally applicable embodiments: a pillow "core" and a pillow "cover." Both embodiments teach a pillow structure with a top panel, a bottom panel, and sidewalls (gusset) connecting them. Crucially, Rasmussen teaches that these sidewalls can be made of a "highly porous" "3D textile material" to provide a "significant degree of ventilation," while the top and bottom panels are made of a less porous material (e.g., visco-elastic foam or jersey fabric). This directly maps to the ’332 patent’s central limitation of a gusset having greater porosity than the panels. Rasmussen also discloses dependent claim features, such as using memory foam fill, moisture-wicking materials (polyester), and a mesh-like "3D textile" structure.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted that anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), reading Rasmussen alone, would have recognized the desirability of providing increased airflow for cooling and preventing pillow "ballooning" to enhance comfort. These were well-known objectives in the bedding industry, and Rasmussen provides a clear solution.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing Rasmussen's teachings, as the concepts of gusseted pillows and using breathable fabrics for ventilation were well-established.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Rasmussen in view of Doak - Claims 1-5, 28, and 31-32 are obvious over Rasmussen in view of Doak.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Rasmussen (WO 2010/075294) and Doak (Patent 3,109,182).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Rasmussen teaches the primary inventive concept of a pillow with a highly porous gusset for ventilation. Doak, an earlier patent, teaches a conventional "bed pillow" with a perimetric gusset that extends around the pillow, joining arcuately bowed-out top and bottom panels. Doak also describes its gusset as providing ventilation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Rasmussen's porous gusset material with Doak's conventional pillow shape for predictable results. The motivation would be to incorporate the advanced ventilation feature from Rasmussen into a familiar, aesthetically pleasing, and commercially accepted pillow form taught by Doak. Both references are in the same field of endeavor (ventilating pillows) and address the same problem, making their combination straightforward.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining a known material (Rasmussen's porous gusset) with a known pillow structure (Doak's perimetric gusset and shape) would be a simple design choice with a clear expectation of success.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Rasmussen in view of Schlussel - Claims 1, 13, 22, 23, 27, 33, and 34 are obvious over Rasmussen in view of Schlussel.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Rasmussen (WO 2010/075294) and Schlussel (Application # 2007/0261173).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Rasmussen teaches a gusset made of a "highly porous 3D textile material." Schlussel, which relates to mattress pads, explicitly discloses a "3D spacer fabric" as a three-dimensional knitted material with two breathable outer layers connected by separator yarns (e.g., polyester) to create a "highly breathable" construction. This combination provides the specific structural details for the "open cell construction," "mesh configuration," and "interlaced strands" recited in several dependent claims of the ’332 patent.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to use the specific, well-understood 3D spacer fabric from Schlussel to implement the more general "highly porous 3D textile" disclosed in Rasmussen. Both references are in the analogous art of bedding and share the common goal of enhancing breathability. This would be an application of a known material (Schlussel's fabric) to a known product (Rasmussen's pillow) to achieve a predictable improvement in ventilation.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as 3D spacer fabrics were known in the art for their breathability and were suitable for use in bedding products.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on Rasmussen in further view of Garus (for specific "x" pattern strand connections), Schecter (for reinforcing piping), Mason (for gel fill material), and Burton (for a four-piece gusset construction).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "gusset": Petitioner argued for a construction of "a generally vertically-oriented portion of a pillow between the top and bottom panels to provide for enlargement or expansion of the pillow." This construction was asserted to be consistent with the patent’s disclosure and the understanding of a POSITA based on prior art pillows.
  • "open cell construction": Petitioner contended this term, which the examiner had previously found was not an art-recognized term, should not be given independent patentable weight beyond the specific structures recited in the claims (e.g., "strands defining a mesh configuration"). If construed, Petitioner argued the Board should adopt the patent’s own definition: "a construction having overall porosity greater than the inherent porosity of the constituent material."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-11, 13, 15-25, and 27-34 of the ’332 patent as unpatentable.