PTAB

IPR2018-00742

Fasteners for Retail, Inc. v. RTC Industries, Inc.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Product Management Display System with Trackless Pusher Mechanism
  • Brief Description: The ’132 patent is directed to a product management display system for merchandising products on a retail shelf. The system features a front rail and adjustable dividers that can be selectively locked to prevent lateral movement or unlocked to allow repositioning along the rail via a movable engaging member.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Rataiczak - Claims 1, 5-8 are unpatentable as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Rataiczak.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Rataiczak (Application # 2008/0017598).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Rataiczak discloses every element of the challenged claims. Independent claim 1 is met by Rataiczak’s merchandise display system (Fig. 22), which includes a front rail (440) with a "first engaging member" (plateau section 478). This rail engages a divider (444) having a "second engaging member" (a groove on its underside). A pivoting "third engaging member" (locking element 460) is connected to the divider and moves between a first, unlocked position (Fig. 24B), where the divider is laterally movable, and a second, locked position (Fig. 24A), where the divider is fixed. Petitioner asserted that dependent claims 5-8 are also taught, as Rataiczak shows the locking stem (466) having an engaging surface (claim 5), the front rail’s plateau section being a projection (claim 6), the divider being immovable when locked (claim 7), and the front rail having an aperture for a mounting clip (claim 8).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Rataiczak and Mueller - Claims 1, 5-8 are obvious over Rataiczak in view of Mueller.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Rataiczak (Application # 2008/0017598) and Mueller (Patent 7,216,770).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Rataiczak discloses nearly all limitations of the challenged claims. To the extent any limitation related to mounting the front rail to a shelf via a fastener is not explicitly clear in one embodiment of Rataiczak, Mueller (which is expressly incorporated by reference into Rataiczak) provides the missing disclosure. Mueller teaches using a conventional fastener (42) passing through an opening (28) in the mounting member to secure it to a subjacent shelf (A).
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these teachings because Rataiczak itself suggests it by incorporating Mueller by reference. Furthermore, Rataiczak teaches that preventing inadvertent movement of the system is desirable. Securing the front rail to the shelf, as taught by Mueller, is a simple and well-known way to achieve this stability. A POSITA would have found it obvious to apply the secure mounting method from one part of Rataiczak's disclosure (and the incorporated Mueller) to the main embodiment discussed.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involves applying a conventional fastener to a mounting rail, which is a simple mechanical task with a predictable and successful outcome.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Sjoberg, Rataiczak, and Mueller - Claims 1, 5-8 are obvious over Sjoberg in view of Rataiczak and further in view of Mueller.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sjoberg (WO 2007/073294), Rataiczak (Application # 2008/0017598), and Mueller (Patent 7,216,770).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Sjoberg disclosed a merchandise display system with a front fixing device (2) and dividers (5) that are locked and unlocked by a movable fixing element (20). However, Sjoberg's divider lacks a divider floor, which could make it unstable. Rataiczak was cited for its teaching of a divider with an integrated floor (base portion 484), a common feature in the art to enhance stability. Mueller was cited to provide a teaching of using screws or conventional fasteners to mount the rail, an alternative Sjoberg itself suggests but does not detail.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Sjoberg with Rataiczak to solve a known problem. The instability of dividers without floors was a recognized issue, and adding a floor as taught by Rataiczak would be an obvious modification to improve the stability of Sjoberg’s divider. A POSITA would be further motivated to combine these with Mueller because Sjoberg explicitly mentions using screws as an alternative to its primary double-sided tape method. Mueller and Rataiczak teach the conventional and more robust method of using fasteners and apertures, which a POSITA would find obvious to implement for applications where adhesive is unsuitable (e.g., oily surfaces, outdoor use).
    • Expectation of Success: Combining these known elements—a locking rail from Sjoberg, a stabilizing floor from Rataiczak, and a conventional fastener from Mueller—was argued to be a straightforward assembly of existing components to achieve a predictable result.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Mounted: Petitioner argued that under the broadest reasonable construction, the term "mounted" should be interpreted as "mounted, attached, joined or coupled, directly or indirectly." This construction is based on an explicit definition provided in the specification of the ’132 patent itself.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Priority Date Entitlement: A central argument of the petition was that the challenged claims are not entitled to a priority date earlier than September 2, 2011. Petitioner contended that the provisional and non-provisional applications filed before this date failed to provide adequate written description for key limitations of claim 1, specifically the "third engaging member" configured to move between a first (movable) and second (fixed) position. This argument is critical, as it establishes that Rataiczak (2008), Sjoberg (2007), and Mueller (2007) are all valid prior art references against the challenged claims.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested that the Board institute an inter partes review and cancel claims 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Patent 9,149,132 as unpatentable.