PTAB

IPR2017-01275

C&D Zodiac Inc v. B E Aerospace Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: AIRCRAFT INTERIOR LAVATORY
  • Brief Description: The ’641 patent relates to an aircraft lavatory or other cabin enclosure featuring a contoured forward wall. The wall incorporates a recess shaped to conform to the aft surface of an adjacent, forward-facing passenger seat, which allows the seat to be positioned further aft in the aircraft, thereby increasing usable cabin space.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-17 are obvious over Admitted Prior Art and Betts

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Admitted Prior Art (“APA”) (disclosed in the ’641 patent specification) and Betts (Patent 3,738,497).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the APA, as described in the ’641 patent’s own specification, discloses a conventional aircraft lavatory with a flat forward wall positioned adjacent to a standard passenger seat, thereby teaching most of the claimed elements. The primary reference, Betts, issued in 1973 and discloses an aircraft coat closet with a contoured forward wall containing a recess. This recess is nearly identical to that claimed in the ’641 patent and is explicitly designed to conform to the back of an adjacent passenger seat to create more cabin room. Petitioner asserted that modifying the APA’s flat-walled lavatory by substituting Betts’s known contoured wall renders the limitations of independent claims 1 and 8 obvious. Petitioner further contended that dependent claim limitations—such as a projection over the seat back (claim 3), the lavatory being taller than the seat (claim 4), or the recess having upper and lower portions (claim 6)—are also expressly disclosed or made obvious by Betts or the APA.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) designing aircraft interiors would be constantly motivated to find ways to use cabin space more efficiently. Betts expressly teaches that its recessed wall provides more passenger room. A POSITA would combine the standard lavatory of the APA with the known space-saving wall design from Betts to achieve the predictable result of increased cabin space. The ’641 patent itself suggests the invention applies broadly to lavatories, closets, or galleys, reinforcing that a POSITA would view applying a feature from a closet (Betts) to a lavatory as a simple design choice.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involves the simple substitution of one known wall configuration for another to achieve a well-understood and predictable benefit.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner emphasized that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board had already found the claims of the parent ’838 patent obvious over this same combination of prior art in a Final Written Decision (FWD) from a previous inter partes review (IPR).

Ground 2: Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-17 are obvious over Admitted Prior Art and the KLM Crew Rest Document

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: APA (disclosed in the ’641 patent specification) and the KLM Crew Rest Document (a printed publication from the file history of Patent 6,520,451).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: The APA again provided the baseline prior art lavatory. The KLM Crew Rest Document, which Petitioner established as a printed publication available before the patent’s priority date, describes a crew rest area for a Boeing 747 developed in the early 1990s. This enclosure was explicitly built using a lavatory envelope and featured a contoured forward wall with a recess. The recess was specifically designed to allow the last row of passenger seats to be positioned further aft while still being able to recline. Petitioner argued this design discloses a forward wall shaped to conform to a seat back, meeting the core limitations of the independent claims. As with the Betts ground, Petitioner argued that adding a second, lower recess for the seat support structure would be an obvious modification. Dependent claim limitations were also allegedly met by the combination.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was again the well-established goal of maximizing passenger cabin space. A POSITA would recognize that the KLM Crew Rest design provides a proven, real-world solution for integrating seating with a forward enclosure to save space. Since the KLM design was already based on a lavatory envelope, applying its contoured wall design to a standard lavatory would be a particularly small and logical step for a POSITA to take.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be highly predictable, as the proposed modification simply applies a known and implemented space-saving wall contour from a lavatory-like enclosure to a standard lavatory.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that under the broadest reasonable construction standard used in IPR proceedings, the claim term “recess” should be interpreted to mean “a wall that includes a contour in the vertical plane.” This construction was based on the patent’s specification and was presented as critical to establishing that the contoured walls of the Betts and KLM Crew Rest references meet the limitations of the claims.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 3-10, and 12-17 of Patent 9,073,641 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.