PTAB

IPR2018-00030

Artesian Home Products Inc v. GuTTErGLove Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Supported Mesh Debris Preclusion System for Gutters
  • Brief Description: The ’454 patent discloses a gutter guard system featuring a mesh screen suspended over the gutter cavity. The system uses a rigid support structure with a floor and upward-extending ribs that run parallel to the long dimension of the gutter to support the screen and facilitate water drainage.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lenney, Higginbotham, and Van Horn - Claims 1-3, 12-14, 16, and 17 are obvious over Lenney in view of Higginbotham and Van Horn.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lenney (Patent 7,310,912), Higginbotham (Application # 2007/0234647), and Van Horn (Patent 546,042).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Lenney discloses the foundational gutter guard system, including a rigid support with a floor, upward-extending ribs, and an overlying screen. However, Lenney’s screen is substantially planar. Higginbotham was argued to teach modifying a gutter screen with troughs or "folded portions" to solve the known problem of water skipping over the gutter, by channeling water and promoting wicking. Van Horn was cited for its teaching of orienting corrugations on a gutter shield in the downhill direction of water flow to create "watercourses" that do not impede flow and simultaneously strengthen the shield.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to modify the planar screen of Lenney to improve its water-capturing ability, a known issue in the art. A POSITA would have looked to Higginbotham’s use of troughs to prevent water from skipping over the gutter. To optimize this design, the POSITA would have incorporated Van Horn’s teaching to orient these troughs in the downhill direction of water flow, thereby enhancing flow into the gutter without interference and adding structural strength.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as the application of known solutions to solve known problems. Incorporating troughs (from Higginbotham) and orienting them downhill (from Van Horn) into a standard gutter guard (Lenney) would predictably result in improved water handling and a stronger screen.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Lenney, Leone, and Van Horn - Claims 1-3, 12-14, 16, and 17 are obvious over Lenney in view of Leone and Van Horn.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lenney (Patent 7,310,912), Leone (Patent 6,032,806), and Van Horn (Patent 546,042).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground again used Lenney as the base reference for the gutter guard assembly. Instead of Higginbotham, Petitioner relied on Leone, which, while from the field of drilling mud filtration, teaches that impressing ridges and channels onto a screen increases its surface area and thus improves its flow capacity. Van Horn was used, as in Ground 1, to teach orienting such corrugations in the downhill direction for improved water flow and strength in a gutter guard context.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that the ’454 patent itself identifies handling heavy downpours as a key challenge. A POSITA seeking to improve the flow rate of the Lenney device to handle such downpours would have been motivated to find solutions for increasing screen flow capacity. Leone, though from a different field, was asserted to be analogous art as it addresses the same fundamental problem of increasing fluid flow through a screen. A POSITA would apply Leone’s technique of corrugating the screen and, following Van Horn’s teachings, would orient these corrugations downhill to maximize flow and strengthen the screen.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected that adding corrugations to Lenney’s screen, as taught by Leone, would predictably increase its surface area and flow rate. Orienting these corrugations according to Van Horn would predictably channel water effectively and add rigidity, leading to a successful and improved gutter guard.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "including an extension overlapping on an upper edge of said screen": Petitioner argued that under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, this phrase must modify the "rigid support" rather than the "screen." A construction where the screen overlaps itself would be unintelligible, whereas the prior art and the patent’s figures show a ledge or portion of the rigid support that creates a slot for the screen’s edge.
  • "screen being bent into a configuration including multiple crests alternating with multiple troughs": Petitioner proposed this term should be construed broadly as a "screen being shaped into multiple high points and low points." This construction was argued to be consistent with the specification’s varied examples of corrugated shapes (e.g., pointed, flat, curved) and necessary to properly encompass the teachings of the prior art.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner anticipated that the Patent Owner might argue the petition is redundant to the patent’s prosecution history and should be denied under 35 U.S.C. §325(d). Petitioner contended its arguments were not previously considered, arguing that the Examiner improperly handled Lenney during prosecution. Specifically, the Examiner issued an obviousness-type double patenting rejection over Lenney but then allowed Patent Owner to overcome it with a terminal disclaimer. Petitioner asserted that because Lenney was a statutory prior art reference under 35 U.S.C. §102(b), a terminal disclaimer was ineffective, and the Examiner failed to properly consider Lenney in a standard obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. §103.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-3, 12-14, 16, and 17 of the ’454 patent as unpatentable.