PTAB

IPR2017-00524

Fredman Bros Furniture Co Inc v. Bedgear LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Pillow Protector
  • Brief Description: The ’408 patent discloses a bedding system featuring a pillow protector designed to prevent contamination while providing airflow. The protector has an opening in a first panel covered by an outer patch and an inner filter, which are made of materials more porous than the main body of the protector.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claim 12 is obvious over Fry in view of Shelby.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fry (Application # US 2009/0083908) and Shelby (Application # US 2007/0283498).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Fry, which is directed to hypoallergenic pillow encasings, discloses nearly all limitations of claim 12. Fry teaches a bedding system with a two-panel pillow cover, where the panels are made from a first material (fabric 101) coated to be largely impermeable. It discloses an opening in the first panel covered by a two-layer vent comprising an outer fabric patch (fabric 105) and an inner filter (filter 104), with both being more porous than the coated cover material to allow airflow. Fry also shows a pillow disposed in the cavity and a second panel that is free of any openings corresponding to the one in the first panel. Petitioner asserted the only limitation not explicitly taught by Fry is the precise arrangement where the filter "engages an inner surface of the first panel such that the opening is positioned between the patch and the filter." Petitioner contended that Shelby, which discloses vented mattress and pillow covers, remedies this deficiency. Shelby expressly teaches a vent structure with a microporous membrane filter (filter 228) fastened to the inner surface of the cover, with an opening (hole 226) positioned between this inner filter and an outer breathable overlay (overlay 230), exactly as required by the claim.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Fry and Shelby. Both references are in the same field of endeavor—bedding covers with filtered vents—and address the same problem of balancing ventilation with protection from contaminants. Shelby expressly states that its vent concepts for mattresses "may be adapted to form a pillow." A POSITA, seeking to improve the vent design in Fry's pillow, would have looked to analogous solutions like Shelby's and found it obvious to apply Shelby's specific and effective filter attachment method to Fry's system. This would have been a predictable modification to achieve a known benefit.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references. Integrating Shelby’s inner-mounted filter structure into Fry's pillow cover is a simple mechanical substitution of one known vent configuration for another. Since both vent structures serve the identical purpose of filtering contaminants while allowing airflow, the combination would predictably result in a functional and improved pillow protector without altering the fundamental principles of either reference.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "third material" versus "second material": Petitioner argued that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 12 does not require the "second material" (of the patch) to be different from the "third material" (of the filter). This argument was based on the claim's plain language, which lacks an explicit limitation requiring them to be different. Petitioner further relied on the doctrine of claim differentiation, noting that a dependent claim in the ’408 patent does contain such a limitation, implying its absence in independent claim 12 was intentional. However, Petitioner also noted this construction was ultimately immaterial to patentability, as Shelby teaches embodiments where the patch and filter materials are different.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claim 12 of the ’408 patent as unpatentable.