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

1. Case Identification

• Patent #: 9,504,321
• Filed: March 5, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Fasteners for Retail, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): RTC Industries, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 9

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Product Management Display System with Trackless Pusher Mechanism
• Brief Description: The ’321 patent relates to a product management display system for retail shelves. The invention describes a system with components such as dividers, floors, and pusher mechanisms, featuring a specific lock mechanism designed to permit or restrict the slidable movement of system components relative to a front rail.

3. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Priority Date of Claim 9: Petitioner asserted that contested claim 9 is not entitled to a priority date earlier than September 2, 2011. This date corresponds to Provisional Application # 61/530,736. Petitioner argued that earlier-filed applications in the priority chain fail to provide written description support for key limitations of claim 9, including the "front lock," its ability to be shifted between positions, and its function of selectively permitting and preventing movement of the floor. Establishing this later priority date is critical to the petition, as it confirms that the primary prior art references, Rataiczak (published 2008) and Mueller (issued 2007), pre-date the claimed invention and are valid prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "front end": Petitioner proposed that "front end" should be construed as "front region" rather than being limited to only the front-most facing surface. This construction was based on the ’321 patent's own figures (e.g., Figs. 28, 30), which show a component riveted to a tray "behind" the absolute front surface but still described as being at the "front end." Petitioner argued this broader construction is necessary to properly map the prior art’s lock mechanism to the claim.
• "mounted": Petitioner argued that "mounted" should be construed broadly as "mounted, attached, joined or coupled, directly or indirectly." This position was explicitly supported by the patent's specification, which provides this exact definition to broadly include any technique for joining one part to another.

5. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Rataiczak - Claim 9 is anticipated by Rataiczak under §102.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Rataiczak (Application # 2008/0017598).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Rataiczak discloses every element of claim 9. Rataiczak’s adjustable shelving system (Fig. 25) was shown to include a front rail (490), dividers (494) that engage the rail, a floor (track 492) that also engages the rail, and a pusher mechanism (520) mounted to slide along the floor. The "front lock" of claim 9 was mapped to Rataiczak's movable "engaging member" (506), which is coupled to the front of the floor and uses teeth (504) to engage corresponding teeth (502) on the front rail. Petitioner argued this lock is "digitally accessible when product is on the floor" because Rataiczak's floor includes an opening (524) providing finger access to a contact surface (526) to retract the engaging member. Rataiczak explicitly teaches that the track can be laterally adjusted "without having to be unloaded," satisfying the claim limitation. The lock's shiftable nature was mapped to its movement between a first (retracted/disengaged) position that permits slidable movement and a second (biased/engaged) position that prevents it.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Rataiczak and Mueller - Claim 9 is obvious over Rataiczak in view of Mueller under §103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Rataiczak (Application # 2008/0017598) and Mueller (Patent 7,216,770).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground relied on the teachings of Rataiczak, as in Ground 1, but supplemented them with Mueller. Petitioner argued that to the extent Rataiczak’s system of separate tracks (492) and dividers (with base 530) might be found not to disclose a floor integrated with the divider, Mueller teaches this precise feature. Mueller discloses an integral divider (Fig. 3) with a base portion that serves as the floor on which the pusher (80) slides. A POSITA would therefore find it obvious to apply Rataiczak's digitally accessible locking mechanism to an integrated divider-floor structure as taught by Mueller.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted two primary motivations for combining the references. First, Rataiczak itself explicitly suggests making its track and divider integral and incorporates Mueller by reference as a specific example of such a design. Second, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to create an integral unit to solve the known problem of time-consuming shelf setup, a disadvantage of prior systems noted by Rataiczak. An integral unit would have fewer parts and be faster to install.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in making the combination. The motivation was not based on hindsight but on an explicit suggestion in the primary reference. Combining known elements (a lockable divider from Rataiczak with an integral floor from Mueller) to achieve the predictable result of improved setup efficiency would have been a straightforward modification.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claim 9 of Patent 9,504,321 as unpatentable.