PTAB

IPR2018-00663

3BTech, Inc. v. Jingle Master International Ltd.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Liquid Dispenser
  • Brief Description: The ’986 patent relates to an electric liquid dispenser that employs air pressure to dispense liquid from a container. The purported invention is a switch configuration that, when pressed, simultaneously activates an electric pump and closes a pressure relief tube. When the switch is released, it deactivates the pump and opens the pressure relief tube to immediately release residual air pressure, thereby preventing excess liquid from dripping out.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claim 1 is obvious over Kikuchi in view of Sheu.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kikuchi (Japanese Utility Model Application Publication No. JP S53-149264U) and Sheu (United Kingdom Application Publication No. GB 2223092A).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kikuchi discloses almost every element of claim 1, including the core inventive concept: a liquid dispenser with a single pushbutton switch that controls both an electric pump and a pressure relief mechanism. When pressed, the switch in Kikuchi activates the pump and blocks an exhaust pipe; when released, it deactivates the pump and unblocks the pipe to release pressure. Petitioner contended that Kikuchi fails to expressly teach only two limitations: "multiple air ports formed through the shell" and an "air outlet extending to the top end of the shell." The first missing element, multiple air ports, was allegedly supplied by Sheu. The second difference, the location of the air outlet, was argued to be a minor and trivial rearrangement of parts constituting an obvious design choice.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of Kikuchi and Sheu because both references relate to electrically operated liquid dispensers that face the similar technical challenge of drawing ambient air into the device for pressurization. Sheu explicitly teaches using multiple air ports to facilitate this airflow. Therefore, a POSITA would be motivated to modify Kikuchi's dispenser with Sheu's multiple air ports to ensure stable and sufficient air intake, preventing potential negative-pressure conditions that could impede pump performance or reduce product life.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because implementing Sheu's teaching on Kikuchi involved the simple and well-understood modification of forming holes in a dispenser's shell. This combination of known elements would predictably result in improved airflow without technical difficulty.

Ground 2: Claim 1 is obvious over Matsushita in view of Sheu and Kikuchi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Matsushita (Japanese Utility Model No. S57-45411Y2), Sheu (United Kingdom Application Publication No. GB 2223092A), and Kikuchi (Japanese Utility Model Application Publication No. JP S53-149264U).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Matsushita discloses a compact liquid dispenser that, like the ’986 patent, uses a switch to control both an air pump and a pressure release valve. Petitioner argued that for the few elements not found in Matsushita, a POSITA would look to other prior art. Sheu was again relied upon to supply the "multiple air ports" limitation. Kikuchi was relied upon to supply the more specific structures of the switch and pressure release mechanism recited in the claim, which are absent in Matsushita. Specifically, Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to substitute Matsushita’s pressure release passageway and switch with Kikuchi’s pressure release tube and more detailed switch assembly.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine Matsushita with Sheu was the same as in Ground 1—to improve airflow for the pump. A POSITA would combine Matsushita with Kikuchi because they represent two known, interchangeable solutions to the same problem of controlling pressure release in an electric dispenser. It would have been an obvious replacement of one known solution (Matsushita's valve/passageway) with a similar, known solution (Kikuchi's valve/tube) to perform the identical function.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have known how to substitute the components from Kikuchi into Matsushita without technical difficulty. The combination involved replacing known elements to perform their established functions, leading to a high expectation of achieving the predictable result of a functional pressure-release system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner argued that several claim terms are unclear and structurally impossible as written, proposing the following constructions for the purpose of the IPR proceeding.

  • "an injection tube being formed on and protruding longitudinally from the bottom of the shell": Petitioner contended this is structurally impossible, as a part of the shell cannot protrude from its own lowest point. Petitioner proposed that for the purpose of comparing the claim to the prior art, the term should be interpreted as an "injection tube" that is a component separate from the shell.
  • "an air outlet extending to the top end of the shell": Petitioner argued that while the claim requires the outlet to extend to the "top end," the patent's own disclosure only shows it extending to an "upper portion" of the shell. Petitioner proposed this term should be interpreted as the air outlet extending "toward the top end of the shell" or to a "top portion of the shell."
  • "a switch... having a bottom; and a central mounting tube being formed on and protruding from the bottom of the switch": For reasons similar to the first term, Petitioner argued this limitation is structurally impossible. It was proposed that the "bottom" of the switch be interpreted as a portion of the switch, not necessarily its absolute lowest point.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claim 1 of Patent 7,882,986 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.