PTAB

IPR2019-01133

InNOvatIONs4Flooring NV v. Flooring Industries Ltd SARL

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Flooring Elements with Mechanically Coupling Parts
  • Brief Description: The ’460 patent discloses floor panels that connect via mechanical coupling parts on their edges. The invention focuses on panels wherein the substrate, and at least a portion of the coupling parts, are made from a "filled synthetic material composite" composed of a synthetic material (e.g., thermoplastic) and a filler (e.g., wood fibers).

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 7, 8, 10-13, 15-25, 27, and 29-30 are obvious over Brice in view of Chen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Brice (Application # 2006/0260253) and Chen (Application # 2006/0032175).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Brice teaches all structural features of independent claim 7, including rectangular floor panels with distinct coupling mechanisms on opposite sides. Brice’s short sides feature a "push-lock" system with vertically and horizontally active locking portions, while its long sides use a "turning movement" (angling) lock. The key difference is that Brice's substrate is a conventional high-density fiberboard. Petitioner asserted that Chen addresses the known weaknesses of such cores (moisture sensitivity, chipping at joints) by teaching a wood/polymer composite core where a polymer encapsulates natural fibers, which meets the "filled synthetic material composite" limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Chen's improved composite core with Brice's established panel design to solve the well-known problems of moisture damage and joint fragility associated with Brice's fiberboard core. Chen explicitly diagnoses the problems of fiberboard and provides the solution, creating a strong motivation for a POSITA to apply that solution to a known panel design like Brice's to achieve a predictable improvement in product durability.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because both Brice and Chen describe floor panels with the same fundamental structure: a core, top and bottom layers, and integral coupling parts. Chen explicitly stated its composite core can be used with many locking mechanisms and panel shapes, making the substitution straightforward.

Ground 2: Claims 7, 8, 10-13, 15-25, 27, and 30 are obvious over Pålsson in view of Chen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Pålsson (Patent # 6,591,568) and Chen (Application # 2006/0032175).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted this ground with parallel logic to Ground 1, substituting Pålsson as the primary reference for the panel structure. Pålsson was argued to disclose a "push-lock" vertical assembly on one pair of sides (using a snapping hook and undercut for vertical lock, and cheek surfaces for horizontal lock) and a "turning" lock on the other. Pålsson's core is a conventional wood fiberboard, which Petitioner argued would be obviously replaced by Chen's superior wood/polymer composite core.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation is identical to that in Ground 1: to improve the performance of a known flooring system (Pålsson's) by incorporating a known, superior core material (Chen's). Pålsson itself noted that moisture can cause its wood-based core to expand, identifying the very problem Chen is designed to solve and creating a direct impetus for the combination.
    • Expectation of Success: The expectation of success was argued to be high for the same reasons as in Ground 1. The basic panel architecture in Pålsson is compatible with the composite core taught by Chen, making the modification a predictable and straightforward improvement.

Ground 3: Claim 8 is obvious over Pålsson or Brice in view of Chen, and further in view of Laver.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Brice (Application # 2006/0260253) or Pålsson (Patent # 6,591,568), Chen (Application # 2006/0032175), and Laver (WO 2005/044536).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically targets dependent claim 8, which requires the filled synthetic material composite to comprise "at least two zones of different composition." Petitioner argued that if the Brice/Chen or Pålsson/Chen combinations are deemed insufficient to teach this limitation, adding Laver renders it obvious. Laver teaches an extruded wood-plastic composite plank manufactured via co-extrusion to have zones of different densities, such as a high-density, non-foamed outer skin or flanges for strength and a low-density, foamed core to reduce weight and cost.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to modify the composite core of Chen (as applied to Brice or Pålsson) with the zoned-composition concept from Laver. This would allow for optimizing the panel by making the coupling parts from a stronger, high-density material while making the central core from a lighter, less expensive material, achieving the known benefits taught by Laver.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected, as both Chen and Laver teach manufacturing wood-plastic composite planks via co-extrusion, the exact technique used to create zones of different compositions, making the integration of the concepts predictable.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed a construction for the key term "filled synthetic material composite" recited in independent claim 7.
  • Proposed Construction: "a composite having a matrix formed of a synthetic material and filler material contained within that matrix."
  • Importance: Petitioner argued this construction was compelled by the patent's specification and prosecution history. During prosecution, the applicant distinguished prior art by emphasizing that in their invention, the synthetic material forms the matrix—not the wood fiber filler, as is the case in conventional fiberboard. This construction was central to Petitioner's argument that the composite taught by Chen, where a polymer encapsulates wood fibers, meets the claim limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 7, 8, 10-13, 15-25, 27, and 29-30 of the ’460 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.