PTAB

IPR2018-01441

NewZoom LLC v. Crane Merchandising Systems Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus for Vending Products
  • Brief Description: The ’180 patent discloses an improved vending machine and method designed to vend products, particularly bottled beverages, without subjecting them to shock, impact, or damage from dropping or tipping during the vending operation. The system uses a robotic assembly to retrieve a selected item from a queue and transport it to a delivery port.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 10, 29, 32-35, and 37 by Hinouchi

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hinouchi (Japanese Publication No. JPS56-4953)
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hinouchi discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Hinouchi describes a vending machine with a transparent glass front panel allowing customers to view products stored in a plurality of selectable queues on shelves. It features a movable "product receiving vessel" (a capture assembly) that aligns with a customer-selected queue, receives the foremost product without dropping it, and transports the product to a retrieval slot for customer removal. Petitioner contended this structure directly maps to the apparatus claims (e.g., claim 29), which require a chassis with a transparent panel, a product support with ordered queues, and a movable robotic assembly. Likewise, the described operation in Hinouchi allegedly meets all steps of the method claims (e.g., claim 10), including ordering products in queues, moving a capture assembly, and transferring the product to a delivery port without sharp impact.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 10, 29, 33-34, and 37 over Trouteaud and Shore

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Trouteaud (Patent 5,025,950) and Shore (Patent 4,789,054)
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Trouteaud discloses the core functionality of the ’180 patent but lacks a transparent viewing panel, while Shore supplies this missing element. Trouteaud teaches a vending machine for ice cream containers that uses an X-Y picker (a robotic assembly) to retrieve a selected product from one of several magazines (queues) and move it to a delivery station. This was argued to teach the support, selectable queues, and robotic product handling system. Shore discloses a vending machine for video tapes that features a large transparent front panel, allowing customers to see all available products.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Trouteaud’s robotic vending mechanism with Shore’s transparent viewing panel for the predictable purpose of allowing customers to view the products before selection and to watch the "entertaining" robotic retrieval process. Shore itself teaches the benefit of displaying all vended articles to the patron. Petitioner argued this modification would be a simple substitution of Trouteaud's opaque door with Shore's known transparent door to achieve a predictable result.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as combining a known vending machine mechanism with a known transparent front panel involves applying understood design principles to achieve the predictable benefit of product visibility.

Ground 3: Anticipation of Claims 32 and 35 by Trouteaud

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Trouteaud (Patent 5,025,950)
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Trouteaud alone anticipates all limitations of method claim 32 and apparatus claim 35. Trouteaud discloses storing discrete products (ice cream cartons) in selectable queues on identifiable trays (magazines 32, 34 with bins 36). The trays extend from front to back and have sidewalls that retain the products in an aligned row as they are advanced by a spring mechanism. Trouteaud’s X-Y picker system functions as the claimed "robotic assembly" and "product capturer" that aligns with a selected queue, removes a product in response to a vend signal, and transports it to the delivery port. Petitioner contended that the coordinated action of the controller, picker, and product magazines in Trouteaud meets every element of these claims.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued for a specific construction of the term "standing upright/upright standing" (recited in claims 33 and 34), proposing it be interpreted as "having a generally vertical orientation, corresponding to that of a beverage container or other product." This construction was asserted to be consistent with the plain meaning and was supported by a claim construction order from a prior district court litigation involving the parent of the ’180 patent. This construction is central to Petitioner's arguments that the prior art teaches or suggests vending products in such an orientation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 10, 29, 32-35, and 37 of the ’180 patent as unpatentable.