3bTech Inc v. Jingle Master Intl Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-00663
• Patent #: 7,882,986
• Filed: February 17, 2018
• Petitioner(s): 3btech, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Jingle Master Intl Ltd.
• Challenged Claims: 1

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Liquid Dispenser
• Brief Description: The ’986 patent describes a liquid dispenser that mounts on a container and uses an electric pump to generate air pressure for dispensing liquid. The asserted inventive concept is a switch that simultaneously activates the pump and closes a pressure relief tube, and upon release, deactivates the pump while opening the tube to immediately vent residual pressure and prevent dripping.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

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

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Kikuchi (Japanese Utility Model Application # JP S53-149264U) and Sheu (UK Application # GB 2223092A).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kikuchi taught nearly all elements of claim 1, including the core concept of a liquid dispenser with a single switch that dually controls an electric pump and a pressure relief mechanism. Kikuchi, however, did not explicitly disclose two limitations: "multiple air ports formed through the shell" and an "air outlet extending to the top end of the shell". Sheu, a similar electrically operated dispenser, was introduced to explicitly teach the use of multiple air ports to facilitate stable airflow into the device. Petitioner contended that the different location of the pressure release tube's air outlet in Kikuchi was a minor and trivial variation from the claimed configuration, representing an obvious design choice.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine the teachings because both Kikuchi and Sheu relate to electrically operated liquid dispensers and face the common technical challenge of drawing ambient air for pressurization. A POSA would have recognized that modifying Kikuchi’s design to include Sheu's multiple air ports was a known solution to prevent a potential vacuum condition inside the shell and ensure stable pump operation.
  • Expectation of Success: The proposed modification was described as a simple matter of forming holes in the dispenser's shell. Petitioner asserted that a POSA would have known exactly how to implement this change without technical difficulty and would have had a high expectation of achieving the predictable result of improved airflow.

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

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Matsushita (Japanese Utility Model # S57-45411Y2), Sheu (UK Application # GB 2223092A), and Kikuchi (Japanese Utility Model Application # JP S53-149264U).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented Matsushita as an alternative primary reference disclosing a compact, electrically powered liquid dispenser that also used a switch to control both a pump and a pressure relief mechanism. Sheu was again relied upon to supply the teaching of "multiple air ports". Kikuchi was then introduced to supply other missing limitations, specifically the detailed structure of the switch assembly (including a "central mounting tube" and "relief valve disk assembly") and the implementation of a pressure release tube, as Matsushita disclosed a functionally equivalent but structurally different pressure release passageway.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would combine Matsushita with Sheu for the same reasons as in Ground 1—to apply a known solution for improving airflow. Petitioner argued a POSA would have been further motivated to incorporate or substitute the switch and pressure relief tube structures from Kikuchi into Matsushita's design. This was presented as a simple replacement of one known, functionally equivalent component for another to achieve the same, predictable pressure relief function.
  • Expectation of Success: Because the combination involved applying known techniques (adding air ports) and substituting well-known, interchangeable components (Kikuchi's switch for Matsushita's), a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in creating the claimed invention.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "an injection tube being formed on and protruding longitudinally from the bottom of the shell": Petitioner argued this limitation is structurally impossible and ambiguous as written, because a part of the shell (the injection tube) cannot protrude from its own lowest point. For the purposes of the inter partes review (IPR), Petitioner proposed that the "injection tube" should be interpreted as a component that is separate from, rather than integral to, the shell.
• "an air outlet extending to the top end of the shell": Petitioner contended that the patent's specification and drawings do not support the literal interpretation of this phrase (i.e., extending to the uppermost point of the shell). Instead, Petitioner proposed the term should be interpreted more broadly as "extending toward the top end of the shell" or "to a top portion of the shell." This construction was central to the argument that modifying the outlet's location from where it is shown in the prior art was merely an obvious design choice.

5. Relief Requested

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