PTAB

IPR2018-00519

First Quality Baby Products, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method for Constructing an Absorbent Pant Garment
  • Brief Description: The ’877 patent describes a method for constructing a disposable training pant with refastenable side seams. The core invention is a side panel geometry designed to prevent accidental "pop-opens" by placing fasteners in areas of low stress, specifically between parallel portions of the waist and leg end edges, away from angled or curved portions that concentrate stress during movement.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 4-9, 13-17, 19, 21-23, and 28 are anticipated by Fletcher under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fletcher (WO 00/37009).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Fletcher, a prior art publication by the Patent Owner, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Fletcher describes a training pant with the same essential design as the ’877 patent to solve the same "pop-open" problem. It explicitly teaches side panels with a straight waist end edge and a leg end edge comprising both a straight portion and an angled portion. Crucially, Fletcher places the refastenable seams between the straight, parallel portions of these edges, a location it identifies as being "least subject to movements of the wearer," thereby isolating the fasteners from stress and strain. Petitioner asserted this structure directly maps to the limitations of independent claim 1, including the "Transverse Overlap Limitation" and the specific geometric relationship of the panel edges. The arguments for the dependent claims followed, showing Fletcher also discloses the specific dimensional ratios, material compositions (elastic core, stretch-bonded laminate), and fastener configurations recited therein.

Ground 2: Claims 2-3, 10-12, 18, 20, and 26-27 are obvious over Fletcher.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fletcher (WO 00/37009).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed several dependent claims not anticipated by Fletcher. Petitioner contended that these claims add features that would have been obvious modifications of Fletcher's design. These features include specific dimensional ratios for the parallel edges (claims 2-3), extending fasteners past the distal edge (claims 10-12), non-perpendicular distal edges (claims 18, 20), and using a plurality of elastic strands (claims 26-27).
    • Motivation to Combine (or Modify): Petitioner argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to make these modifications for predictable results based on known design principles and market pressures. For example, a POSITA would have been motivated to adjust dimensional ratios and fastener placement to reduce material costs—a common goal in the disposable diaper industry. To achieve a more "garment-like" appearance, another known goal disclosed by Fletcher itself, a POSITA would have been motivated to modify the distal edge angles to eliminate loose flaps created by angled fasteners. Finally, using elastic strands instead of an elastic film was a known, lower-cost alternative for providing elasticity.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in making these modifications, as they involved applying known techniques (e.g., changing knife cuts in manufacturing, using common elastic materials) to achieve predictable improvements in cost or aesthetics.

Ground 3: Claims 24-25 are obvious over Fletcher in view of Allen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fletcher (WO 00/37009) and Allen (Patent 6,149,637).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground challenged claims 24 and 25, which require the side panel to be stretchable in "multiple directions" or a "non-parallel" direction. Fletcher's side panels are described as stretching in one primary direction (transverse). Allen discloses a training pant with a fully elasticized chassis, including side panels, made from a lamina that is stretchable in "all directions."
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that both references addressed the need to improve the fit and comfort of a training pant. While Fletcher's single-direction stretch provides a good fit, a POSITA would have recognized that it would not conform snugly to all body contours, potentially leading to a loose fit on the hip and leakage. Allen explicitly recognized this problem and taught that multi-directional stretch provides a snugger fit and reduces the risk of leakage. Therefore, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Allen's superior multi-directional stretch material into Fletcher's pant design to improve fit and prevent leakage, a known problem with a known solution.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination because Allen provides a detailed "roadmap" for manufacturing its elastic lamina, making its implementation into the Fletcher design straightforward.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the limitation in claim 1, "forming the at least one refastenable seam to include a transverse overlap wider than a transverse width of the smaller fastening component" (the "Transverse Overlap Limitation"), should be construed to mean "forming the at least one refastenable seam such that portions of the front and back side panels transversely overlap, wherein such overlapping portions are wider than a transverse width of the smaller fastening component of the at least one refastenable seam." This construction was central to the anticipation argument, as Petitioner used it to show that Fletcher's drawings and description of overlapping "lap seams" inherently met this limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-28 of the ’877 patent as unpatentable.