PTAB

IPR2018-01216

Zip Top LLC v. STASher Inc

Key Events

Petition

petition Intelligence

Title: Elastomeric Container with Integrated Leak Resistant Seal
Brief Description: The ’153 patent relates to a shaped, elastomeric container featuring an integrated, press-fit seal. The invention purports to improve upon prior art seals, such as those in common plastic storage bags, by using thicker materials or specific seal geometries to provide a more leak-resistant closure that does not require external clips or clasps.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Svec (Patent 2,780,261) and Anzai (Patent 5,235,731).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Svec, a 1957 patent for a plastic container with an integrated, air-tight closure, discloses nearly all limitations of the challenged claims. Svec teaches a shaped elastomeric container with a hermetically sealed, press-fit closure comprising interlocking ridges and grooves. Petitioner asserted that the only limitation not expressly taught by Svec is the claimed average thickness of the press-fit elements being "at least 0.25 cm."
- Motivation to Combine: Anzai, which discloses a molded separable fastener, was cited by the Examiner during the original prosecution for its dimensional teachings. Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine Svec with Anzai because Anzai provides specific sizing data for reclosable fastening elements. This data would help a designer select appropriate fastener dimensions to achieve sufficient fastening strength without requiring an impractically high pressing force to close the seal.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a clear expectation of success, as the combination merely involved applying known sizing parameters from Anzai to the well-understood seal structure of Svec, which constituted a predictable design modification.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Svec (Patent 2,780,261) and Ausnit (Patent 4,199,845).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative to Ground 1, offering Ausnit to supply the thickness limitation missing from Svec. Ausnit discloses an improved closure for heavy-duty plastic zippers with a total interlocked thickness of up to 300 mils (0.76 cm) or more. Petitioner argued this clearly teaches the claimed thickness of "at least 0.25 cm" for each press-fit element, as the elements in Ausnit are symmetrical.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to create a more robust version of Svec's container would naturally look to Ausnit's teachings on heavy-duty, large-scale seals. Both patents relate to reclosable, press-fit interlocking seals for plastic containers, making the combination a straightforward approach to improving seal strength and durability.
- Expectation of Success: Applying the thicker dimensions taught by Ausnit to the foundational seal design of Svec was argued to be a predictable modification to enhance the container's robustness.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Svec (Patent 2,780,261), Anzai (Patent 5,235,731), and Silverman (Patent 2,674,289).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Silverman to address the "wide-mouth" limitation present in claims 3, 16, and 20, which requires the container's front edge to be wider than its back edge. While Svec provided the basic container and Anzai provided the seal dimensions, Silverman explicitly disclosed a rubber tobacco pouch with a mouth wider than its base.
- Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that modifying the Svec container to incorporate a wider mouth as shown in Silverman was a simple design choice. A POSITA would recognize that such a modification could improve the container's pourability or allow it to fit better within an outer pouch, making it an obvious aesthetic and functional design variation rather than an inventive step.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims 12-15 and 17-19 are obvious over Svec alone, and other combinations relying on Goodyear (a 1949 handbook on rubber) to teach material properties and manufacturing capabilities for creating seals with the claimed dimensions.

"integrated leak resistant seal": Petitioner argued this term should be construed to mean a seal that is formed as part of the container and resists liquid leakage without the aid of any external structure, such as a clip or clasp, to maintain sealing force. This construction was central to distinguishing the claimed invention from prior art that required additional mechanical elements for a secure seal.
"coupled to": Petitioner proposed this term means the top and bottom enclosures of the container are permanently joined (e.g., molded or sealed) to form a unitary, leak-resistant product along the back, left, and right edges. This construction distinguishes the permanent joints from the reclosable press-fit seal at the front edge.
"vertically offset ridges": Petitioner argued for a broad construction of this term to include nearly any horizontal extension of a vertical protrusion that faces generally downward and is configured to engage a corresponding feature on an opposing seal element.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent 9,371,153 as unpatentable.