PTAB

IPR2018-01441

NewZoom, LLC v. Crane Merchandising Systems, Inc.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus for Vending Products
  • Brief Description: The ’180 patent relates to an improved vending machine and method designed to vend products, particularly bottled beverages, using a robotic assembly. The invention's stated purpose is to retrieve and deliver selected products without subjecting the containers to shock, impact forces, or dropping during the vending operation.

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, a plurality of stations holding queues of products on shelves, and a robotic capture assembly. Petitioner asserted that Hinouchi’s second embodiment teaches a product moving member (robotic assembly) with a receiving vessel (capture assembly) that moves into alignment with a customer-selected queue. The assembly then transfers the foremost product into the vessel and carries it to a delivery port for customer retrieval, all without dropping or damaging the product. For apparatus claim 29, Petitioner contended that a door is inherently disclosed, as a POSITA would understand a door is necessary for routine refilling and maintenance operations.
    • Key Aspects: The argument relies heavily on a direct mapping of Hinouchi's figures and descriptions of its product retrieval mechanism to the method and apparatus elements of the ’180 patent claims, including the gentle handling aspects.

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 argued that Trouteaud disclosed the core robotic vending system, including an X-Y picker assembly for retrieving items (ice cream containers) from organized queues stored in bins. However, Trouteaud lacked a transparent front. Shore was cited for its disclosure of a vending machine (for videotapes) that explicitly teaches the use of a transparent front panel, allowing customers to view the available products. The combination of Trouteaud's robotic system and Shore's transparent front panel allegedly renders the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Shore’s transparent panel with Trouteaud’s robotic system to achieve the well-known and predictable advantage of allowing customers to view the products and the vending operation. Petitioner characterized this as a simple substitution of one known element (Trouteaud's opaque door) for another (Shore's transparent door) to achieve a predictable result. Petitioner also addressed Trouteaud’s reasoning against a window (to avoid temperature fluctuations for frozen products) by arguing this concern is irrelevant for non-frozen products, which the ’180 patent also covers.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involved integrating known components from the same field of art (vending machines) to achieve their known functions.

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 asserted that Trouteaud, by itself, anticipates all limitations of method claim 32 and apparatus claim 35. Trouteaud was argued to disclose storing discrete products in selectable and identifiable trays (Trouteaud's bins), with each tray extending from front to back. Trouteaud's handling means (transporter and picker) was mapped to the claimed "robotic assembly" and "product capturer." Petitioner further argued Trouteaud's bins feature sidewalls spaced to retain products and minimize tipping as they are advanced by a spring mechanism, and its control system directs the robotic assembly to capture a selected product and deliver it to the customer port.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Term: "standing upright" / "upright standing" (in claims 33 and 34).
  • Petitioner's Proposed Construction: Petitioner argued the term should 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 its plain meaning and was supported by a claim construction order from a prior litigation involving the parent of the ’180 patent. This construction was central to mapping the orientation of products shown in the prior art to the claim language.

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.