PTAB

IPR2018-01053

Moen Inc v. Kohler Co

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Shower Bar System
  • Brief Description: The ’256 patent is directed to a shower bar system that includes an overhead shower, a handshower, and a transfer valve assembly operable to direct water to either shower member. The invention features a "tube-in-tube" design where a supply pipe, a first showerhead pipe, and a second showerhead pipe are all disposed within an outer shower bar. This arrangement allows water to be supplied from a single in-wall connection, routed down the bar to a user-operable diverter valve, and then directed back up the bar to the overhead shower or out to the handshower.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lu (Chinese Utility Model Patent Publication No. CN 201248644Y).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lu’s “novel drilling-free shower system” discloses every limitation of independent claim 7 and dependent claim 8. Lu was shown to teach a system with a fixed showerhead ("lotus seedpod shower head") and a hand-held shower ("shower sprinkler"), a main "rod body," and a "water diverter valve" at its lower end. Petitioner contended that Lu's rod body, described as a hollow tube containing two independent water pipes (11 and 12), directly corresponds to the ’256 patent’s claimed "outer pipe" containing a "first flow path" (for supply water) and a "second flow path" (for return water to the fixed showerhead). The diverter valve in Lu, with its valve core and knob, was asserted to meet the limitations of the claimed "transfer valve assembly," including the valve body, valve member, and actuator, as it is operable to switch water flow between the two shower outputs. The two independent pipes within Lu’s rod body were also argued to satisfy the "inner pipe" limitation of dependent claim 8.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 9-16 over Lu in view of Bors

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lu (CN 201248644Y) and Bors (Application # 2009/0255588).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that independent claim 9 adds an "adjustable supply assembly" to the shower system of claim 7. While Lu provides the base shower system, Bors discloses an "adjustable locking spout shank" for plumbing fixtures that meets these added limitations. Bors teaches an adapter (nipple body 300) and a supply member (spout shank 200) that can move axially relative to each other to adjust for different mounting surface thicknesses. Petitioner argued that combining Bors’s adjustable connection with Lu's shower system would result in a system meeting all limitations of claim 9. Dependent claims 10-16—adding features like mounting through a wall, a mounting collar, sliding movement, and seals—were also argued to be disclosed or rendered obvious by Bors's detailed teachings on how its assembly is mounted, adjusted, and sealed with an O-ring.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Lu and Bors to improve Lu’s design with a well-known solution to a common installation problem. Both references are in the same field of plumbing and address connecting fixtures through a wall. Bors explicitly teaches its adjustable assembly solves the known problem of accommodating varied wall thicknesses without needing to cut pipes, a clear benefit for the remodeling and reconstruction applications mentioned in Lu. Applying the known technique from Bors to the known shower system of Lu would have been an obvious design choice to yield the predictable result of a more versatile and easily installed product. A POSITA would recognize that such adjustability is highly desirable in the market.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a high expectation of success in combining the references. The components described in Lu and Bors use standard plumbing connections, and the threaded shank of Bors could be directly coupled to the water inlet of Lu's system. The combination represented a straightforward integration of known mechanical components for their intended purposes, with no technical hurdles that would dissuade a skilled artisan from attempting the modification.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "transfer valve assembly" (Claim 7): Petitioner proposed the construction "a valve assembly capable of adjusting fluid flow." This broad interpretation was used to argue that Lu's "water diverter valve" meets the claim limitation, as it adjusts the flow between the two shower members.
  • "valve body" (Claim 7): Petitioner proposed the construction "a housing for the transfer valve assembly." This construction supported the argument that the "valve seat" (31) disclosed in Lu, which houses the valve core, constitutes the claimed valve body.
  • "mounting collar" (Claim 12): Petitioner proposed the construction "a collar capable of engaging with a mounting surface." This was used in the obviousness ground to map the "first mounting nut" (106) of Bors, which engages the wall surface to secure the assembly, to the claimed collar.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 7-16 of the ’256 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.