PTAB

IPR2018-01596

AdapTics Ltd v. Perfect Co

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Interactive Systems of Weight Scales and Computing Devices
  • Brief Description: The ’217 patent discloses systems and methods for assisting a user in following a recipe. The invention involves a weight scale communicatively linked to a computing device that displays real-time progress as an ingredient is weighed and advances to the next ingredient either automatically or in response to a user command.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Bendel - Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, 17, 21, and 22 are anticipated by Bendel under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bendel (DE 102008008712).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Bendel teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Bendel discloses a computerized cooking and baking guidance system comprising a scale and a processor. It teaches displaying ingredients and target amounts, receiving real-time weight data, performing tare operations, and displaying the current weight. Crucially, Bendel discloses the three distinct methods of advancing between ingredients challenged in the ’217 patent:
      • (Claims 1, 9, 17) Automatic "dead-band" advance, where the system moves to the next ingredient after the measured weight is stable within a settable "quantity tolerance" (upper and lower thresholds) around the target weight. Bendel's disclosure of legal requirements for stable measurements was argued to inherently teach a "period of inactivity."
      • (Claims 5, 13, 21) User-command advance, where a user can manually "change selection" of ingredients, including in a non-sequential order ("out of the order").
      • (Claims 6, 14, 22) Scale-command advance, where user input via buttons on the scale's "input unit" is used to advance to the next ingredient.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Williams and Other References - Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, 17, 21, and 22 are obvious over Williams in view of Bendel, Sartorius, Mettler, Digi-Star, Yuyama, and/or Wright.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Williams (G.B. Patent 2,251,960), Bendel (DE 102008008712), Sartorius ("Combics Pro Software Application Manual: Batching"), Mettler ("IND780 Terminal User Guide"), Digi-Star ("EZ Terminal Manual"), Yuyama (Application # 2008/0135309), and/or Wright (G.B. Patent 2,397,657).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Williams, which was cited by the Examiner during prosecution, teaches the foundational elements of the claims: a computer-controlled cooking system with a scale that displays recipe steps, target weights, and real-time progress via a bar graph. Williams also discloses sequential taring. However, Williams does not explicitly disclose the specific "dead-band," user-command, or scale-command advancement limitations that were the basis for allowance. Petitioner argued these missing elements are explicitly taught by the secondary references. For example, Bendel, Sartorius, Mettler, and Digi-Star all teach automatic advance based on a measured weight stabilizing within a tolerance range (a dead-band) for a period of time. Bendel, Sartorius, and Wright teach manual, out-of-order ingredient selection based on user commands.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the secondary references with Williams to implement the general auto-advance function disclosed by Williams. The secondary references provide known, common-sense methods (e.g., using tolerance windows and stability checks) to ensure weighing accuracy and prevent overpouring, a predictable solution to a known problem. A POSITA would also have been motivated to add manual advance options (taught by Bendel, Sartorius, etc.) to the Williams system to provide greater user flexibility, which is a simple design choice with predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in combining these teachings. The integration involves applying well-established functionalities from analogous computerized weighing systems to the basic framework of Williams to achieve the predictable result of a more robust and user-friendly recipe system.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that the claims are obvious over Sartorius in view of various references if Sartorius is found not to anticipate, and that the claims are obvious over Turnage (a YouTube video demonstrating a kitchen scale app) in view of the same set of secondary references.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Real-time": Petitioner proposed the construction "pertaining to a system or mode of operation in which computation is performed during the actual time that an external process occurs, in order that the computation results can be used to control, monitor, or respond in a timely manner to the external process." This was presented as a broader, more reasonable construction than one previously advanced by the Patent Owner.
  • "Selected out of the order": Petitioner proposed "selected from the ordered list of ingredients." This construction is broader than "selected out of sequence" and encompasses selecting any ingredient from the list, whether in or out of the default sequence, which Petitioner argued is taught by the prior art's "free choice" modes.
  • "Period of inactivity": Petitioner proposed "a period of time during which the weight on the scale does not change appreciably," arguing this is a well-understood concept in the art, particularly given legal requirements for commercial scales to wait for a stable reading.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, 17, 21, and 22 of the ’217 patent as unpatentable.