PTAB
IPR2018-00744
Fasteners for Retail, Inc. v. RTC Industries, Inc.
1. Case Identification
- Patent #: 9,635,957
- Filed: March 5, 2018
- Petitioner(s): Fasteners for Retail, Inc.
- Patent Owner(s): RTC Industries, Inc.
- Challenged Claims: 1, 5, 6, 14, and 15
2. Patent Overview
- Title: Product Management Display System
- Brief Description: The ’957 patent is directed to a merchandise display system used in retail environments. The system features dividers to organize products into columns and a spring-loaded pusher mechanism that advances the products forward. The invention's key aspect is a removable pusher extender that fits over the standard pusher to increase its surface area, allowing it to effectively push larger or differently shaped products.
3. Grounds for Unpatentability
Ground 1: Claims 1, 5, 6, 14, and 15 are obvious over Rataiczak in view of Crown, and further in view of Yablans, Burke, and/or Catalog.
- Prior Art Relied Upon: Rataiczak (Application # 2008/0017598), Crown (Patent Application No. GB 2,291,788), Yablans (Patent 5,190,186), Burke (Application # 2003/0010732), Catalog (FFR DSI's Yellow Pages Product Catalog (2010)), and Mueller (Patent 7,216,770), which is incorporated by reference in Rataiczak.
- Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the combination of references teaches every element of the challenged claims. Rataiczak was argued to disclose the foundational merchandise display system, including dividers, a pusher track, a spring-loaded pusher with a defined "first surface area," and a pusher floor. However, Rataiczak does not teach a pusher extender. To supply this missing element, Petitioner pointed to Yablans, Burke, and Catalog, each of which allegedly discloses a pusher extender with a "second surface area" greater than the pusher's surface area, designed to attach to a standard pusher.
- Claim 1 (Sleeve): Petitioner contended that the extenders in Yablans, Burke, and Catalog are all configured as a "sleeve" that fits over the pusher mechanism. For instance, Yablans describes its adaptor as a C-shaped component placed "about the pusher wall."
- Claim 5 (Cavity): The secondary references were argued to show an elongated pusher body with a cavity. The space behind the front face of the extenders and between their mounting flanges (in Yablans and Burke) or tabs (in Catalog) forms the claimed cavity.
- Claim 14 (Increased Height and Width): Petitioner argued that Yablans, Burke, and Catalog all explicitly disclose or illustrate extenders that increase both the height and width of the original pusher surface to accommodate larger products.
- Claim 15 (Rim): The Catalog reference was cited as disclosing an extender that forms a rim around the perimeter of the underlying pusher mechanism when installed, satisfying this limitation.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted several motivations for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to combine the references. The primary motivation to add an extender from Yablans, Burke, or Catalog to Rataiczak's system was to solve the well-known problem of a single-sized pusher being inadequate for the diverse range of product sizes in a retail store. Adding a modular, removable extender was presented as a simple, predictable solution to increase the system's versatility. The motivation to combine Rataiczak with Crown's teaching of an integrated barrier-divider was to reduce the number of separate components and decrease setup time, a known industry goal.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because combining these simple mechanical elements involves applying known techniques to achieve predictable results. Attaching a known type of extender to a known type of pusher system would predictably result in a system capable of pushing larger items.
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the combination of references teaches every element of the challenged claims. Rataiczak was argued to disclose the foundational merchandise display system, including dividers, a pusher track, a spring-loaded pusher with a defined "first surface area," and a pusher floor. However, Rataiczak does not teach a pusher extender. To supply this missing element, Petitioner pointed to Yablans, Burke, and Catalog, each of which allegedly discloses a pusher extender with a "second surface area" greater than the pusher's surface area, designed to attach to a standard pusher.
4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)
- Priority Date Challenge: A central argument of the petition was that the challenged claims of the '957 patent are not entitled to a priority date any earlier than January 28, 2013, the filing date of the ’479 application. Petitioner contended that earlier applications in the patent's priority chain fail to provide adequate written description for the critical limitation that the extender's "second surface area is greater than the first surface area" of the pusher. By establishing this later priority date, Petitioner sought to ensure that prior art references such as the 2010 Catalog would qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
5. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 5, 6, 14, and 15 of Patent 9,635,957 as unpatentable.