PTAB

IPR2017-00915

Fluidmaster Inc v. Danco Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Toilet Flush Mechanism Components
  • Brief Description: The ’687 patent relates to internal components for retrofitting a toilet, including a dual flush canister, an adapter for connecting the canister to a flush orifice, and a spacer or "basket structure" positioned between the canister and the adapter.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Adapter Claims 1-3 over Balding-299, Tedei-850, and Ho-913

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Balding-299 (Application # 2005/0229299), Tedei-850 (Patent 4,110,850), and Ho-913 (Patent 6,785,913).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Balding-299 taught a retrofit adapter designed to connect a new flush mechanism to an existing flush orifice without disassembling the toilet tank. This adapter included a flush opening, mounting extensions (legs) with locking means, and a sealing washer. Ho-913 taught a modern dual-flush canister connected to a "basket structure." Tedei-850 taught that retrofit adapters must accommodate common, pre-existing angled flush orifices by incorporating a complementary angled flange. Petitioner contended the combination of these references met all limitations of independent claim 1, including the adapter, its angled flange, sealing material, and mounting extensions. Dependent claims 2 and 3, relating to the washer's placement and material (rubber), were allegedly disclosed or made obvious by Balding-299 and Tedei-850, respectively.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Balding-299's retrofit adapter with a modern dual-flush mechanism like that in Ho-913 to achieve the well-understood goal of easily upgrading toilets to be more water-efficient. Because retrofit installations often involve angled flush orifices, a POSITA would have looked to known solutions, such as that taught by Tedei-850, to modify the adapter's flange to ensure the dual-flush canister remained oriented vertically for proper function.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying known connection and adaptation techniques to standard plumbing components, which would have resulted in a predictable and functional assembly.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Basket Structure Claims 4, 7-13 over Ho-913 and Homeowners-2004

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ho-913 (Patent 6,785,913) and Homeowners-2004 (a 2004 Sterling toilet manual).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Ho-913 disclosed the core apparatus of claim 4: a basket structure (spacer) with a first end coupled to a dual-flush canister and support legs defining water passageways. However, Ho-913 used a bayonet fitting. Homeowners-2004, a user manual, explicitly taught an alternative, common connection method: a snap-fit mechanism using inwardly extending tabs on the canister to engage a lip on the flush valve base. This snap-fit connection from Homeowners-2004 allegedly supplied the missing limitation of claim 4: "a plurality of tabs extending inward... configured to engage a lip of a flush opening."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to connect the Ho-913 basket structure to a pre-existing flush valve would have recognized a finite number of predictable solutions. The snap-fit connection taught by Homeowners-2004 was a well-known, interchangeable alternative to a bayonet fitting. A POSITA would combine the two to benefit from the snap-fit's simplicity and ease of installation, a key goal in retrofit products.
    • Expectation of Success: Substituting one known mechanical fastener (bayonet fitting) for another (snap-fit tabs) was a routine design choice in the plumbing arts with a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Anticipation of Canister Support Claims 20-21 by Ho-913

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ho-913 (Patent 6,785,913).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ho-913, standing alone, disclosed every element of claims 20 and 21. Petitioner mapped the claims to Ho-913's disclosure of a dual-flush canister, a basket structure, and support legs. Crucially, Petitioner identified Ho-913's cylindrical portion (7) and float guide (8) as meeting the "circular support structure" limitation, arguing this structure aligns the canister with the flush opening. It further argued that this support structure is mounted on the "toilet overflow tube" because it is fixed around the valve stem (2), which defines the overflow passage (202).
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 14-19 based on a combination of Ho-913, Balding-299, Tedei-850, and Homeowners-2004, arguing the claims merely recited the combined features challenged in Grounds 1 and 2 in a single apparatus.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4 and 7-21 of the ’687 patent as unpatentable.