PTAB

IPR2017-02199

Mobile Tech, Inc. v. Sennco Solutions Inc.

Title: Security System for Securing and/or Aligning a Device
Brief Description: The ’039 patent relates to a security system for securing merchandise, such as consumer electronics, in a retail environment. The invention features a housing with a recession and a connector on a retractable cable, where the geometry of the housing’s opening aligns the connector as it retracts, aiming to prevent misalignment that could lead to damage or theft.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Koshimizu (Japanese Utility Model Publication No. 3100287).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Koshimizu, which discloses a "jewelry display container" for preventing theft, teaches every element of the challenged independent claims. Koshimizu's system for securing a ring to a counter was mapped directly to the claimed "system for securing a device to a fixture." Petitioner identified Koshimizu’s "V-shaped support 22" as the claimed "recession," the "through-hole 22a" as the "opening," the "durable cord 20" as the "cable," the "fastener 24" as the "connector," and the "leaf spring for wire winding 18" as the "retractable reel." The interaction of these components, particularly the retraction of the connector into the V-shaped support via the opening, was argued to meet the ’039 patent's limitations regarding alignment and securement.
- Key Aspects: As an alternative argument (Ground 2), Petitioner contended the claims are obvious over Koshimizu. If Koshimizu was found not to explicitly teach that the recession could maintain the connector, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would have found it obvious to modify the connector with a mechanical stop (e.g., a shoulder) to prevent it from passing through the opening, thereby improving accessibility.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Koshimizu (Japanese Utility Model Publication No. 3100287) and Decoteau (Patent 6,502,727).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claims 2 and 15, which add the limitation of an "adhesive layer" for attaching the device to the connector. Koshimizu discloses a mechanical fastener (a ring-shaped cord) for attachment. Decoteau was cited for its explicit teaching of attaching an electronic device to a security tether using an adhesive layer, such as double-sided tape.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSA would combine these references to adapt Koshimizu's system for devices that lack a loop or other structure suitable for its mechanical fastener (e.g., small jewelry like earrings, or electronic devices like cell phones). Decoteau provided a known and interchangeable attachment method to solve this problem.
- Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a high expectation of success, as using adhesives to attach security sensors to merchandise was a simple, well-established, and predictable technique in the art.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Fort (Patent 6,761,579).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Fort, which discloses a "retail store security system" for products like video cameras, independently anticipates the challenged claims. Fort’s "tubular holder 14" was identified as the claimed "housing," which is tubular and thus has an inherent "recession" to receive a connector pedestal. Fort’s "main cable 48" was identified as the "cable," and its "shroud assembly 10" as the "connector." Petitioner argued that Fort also discloses a retractable cord reel and an opening through which the cable passes, thereby meeting all limitations of the independent claims.
- Key Aspects: Petitioner presented this as a parallel and independent basis for invalidity, asserting that Fort’s security shroud assembly for electronic products functions in the same manner as the system claimed in the ’039 patent.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims 1, 3, 5-6, 13-17, and 19-20 are obvious over Fort (Ground 5) and that claims 2 and 15 are obvious over Fort in view of Decoteau (Ground 6). These grounds relied on arguments analogous to those made against Koshimizu, such as the obviousness of modifying the connector size for a better fit or combining Fort with Decoteau's teaching of adhesive attachment.

"adjacent to": Petitioner argued this term should be construed broadly as "near to" or "close to," consistent with its plain meaning and the patent's specification. This construction would not require direct contact and would permit intervening structures. This is critical to the argument that a retractable reel mounted on the underside of a display table is "adjacent to" the housing mounted on top of the table, as shown in the prior art.
"sized to receive": Petitioner proposed that this term requires the recession to be capable of admitting at least a portion of the connector, but does not require it to maintain or hold the entire connector. This broad interpretation makes it easier to satisfy the limitation with prior art where the connector may partially enter or pass through the recession.
"connectable to the fixture": For claim 13, Petitioner argued this term means "capable of coupling" and includes indirect connections. This construction is important because the prior art cables connect to the fixture indirectly via the retractable reel mechanism, rather than being directly affixed to the fixture itself.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 5-6, 13-17, and 19-20 of Patent 7,154,039 as unpatentable.