PTAB

IPR2020-00032

Vanguard Products Group Inc v. InVue Security Products Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Merchandise Security System
  • Brief Description: The ’178 patent discloses a merchandise security system for displaying and protecting an article of merchandise from theft. The system comprises a sensor with distinct upper and lower portions attachable to the merchandise, a base configured to removably support the sensor, and a tether cable securing the sensor to the base.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-11, and 16 are obvious over Johnston, Wheeler, and Kobold.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Johnston (Application # 2012/0192600), Wheeler (Application # 2014/0159898), and Kobold (WO 2014/019072).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Johnston disclosed the core elements of independent claim 1, including a security system with a base, a tethered sensor comprising upper and lower portions, and a recess in the lower portion to receive a power cable. However, Johnston’s alarm electronics were located in the base, not the sensor. Petitioner asserted that Wheeler taught incorporating alarm circuitry directly into the sensor (an "intelligent sensor") to detect the removal of merchandise. Furthermore, Johnston’s sensor attached via a specific tripod mount, limiting its versatility. Kobold taught using adjustable retaining arms, which are received by the sensor's upper portion, to secure merchandise of various sizes that lack a tripod mount, such as tablets.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Wheeler with Johnston to improve security by making the sensor itself capable of detecting a security event, independent of the base electronics. A POSITA would combine Kobold’s retaining arms with Johnston’s system to increase its versatility and address the known market need for securing merchandise like tablets that lack Johnston's required mounting feature.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended the combination involved integrating known components to perform their established functions. This would have been a straightforward modification with a predictable and successful result.

Ground 2: Claims 14 and 15 are obvious over Johnston, Wheeler, Kobold, and Brenner.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Johnston (Application # 2012/0192600), Wheeler (Application # 2014/0159898), Kobold (WO 2014/019072), and Brenner (WO 2011/045058).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1. Petitioner argued that Brenner disclosed a merchandise security system configured to detect an additional security event not taught by the other references: the removal of the power cable's connector from the merchandise's input port. This teaching was asserted to meet the limitations of claim 14. For claim 15, Petitioner argued that Johnston’s disclosure of a wireless infrared (IR) key for arming and disarming the alarm circuitry met the claim’s wireless communication limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add the feature from Brenner to the base combination of Johnston, Wheeler, and Kobold to create a more robust security device. Detecting an additional, known type of theft attempt (power cable removal) would be a logical improvement to overall system security.
    • Expectation of Success: Adding the known monitoring function from Brenner to the base system would have been a straightforward integration with a high expectation of success in producing a more comprehensive security product.

Ground 3: Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 16 are obvious over Green and Kobold.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Green (WO 2014/004826) and Kobold (WO 2014/019072).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Green, like Johnston in Ground 1, disclosed the fundamental merchandise security system of claim 1, including a sensor with separate upper and lower portions, a base, a power cable recess, and a tether. However, Green's system also attached to merchandise using a specific fastener, which restricted its application to items with a defined fastener opening. Petitioner argued that Kobold remedied this deficiency by teaching the use of retaining arms that are secured between the sensor's upper and lower portions, allowing the system to grip a wider variety of devices.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Kobold with Green for the same primary reason as in Ground 1: to overcome the attachment limitations of the primary reference. This modification would expand the system's applicability to the large market of electronic devices (e.g., tablets) that lack a specific fastener opening, addressing a well-known need in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to adapt the channels already present in Green's upper portion to receive the hooked ends of Kobold's arms. This would yield a predictable and more versatile security system where known components perform their intended functions.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-2, 4-11, and 14-16 of the ’178 patent as unpatentable.