PTAB

IPR2020-01405

Bestway USA Inc v. Intex Marketing Ltd

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Internal Tensioning Structure Useable With Inflatable Devices
  • Brief Description: The ’186 patent discloses an inflatable product, such as an air mattress, that uses an internal tensioning structure to maintain its shape. The tensioning structure is formed by connecting a pair of plastic sheets to spaced-apart strands, such as strings or wires, creating a strong weld between the structure and the inflatable product.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 6-8, and 10 are obvious over Hanlie and Fireman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hanlie (China Patent CN 2676755Y) and Fireman (Application # 2004/0040082).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hanlie disclosed all elements of the independent claims. Hanlie teaches an inflatable mattress with internal tensioning straps made of a three-layer structure: a central mesh layer (of nylon or cotton) sandwiched between and fused to two outer PVC layers ("weld sheets"). This structure corresponds to the claimed "plurality of strands captured between" first and second weld sheets. To the extent Hanlie did not specify the mesh structure, Fireman was cited for its disclosure of a conventional square grid mesh used in a similar three-layer (PVC-mesh-PVC) construction for an inflatable pool wall. Fireman's mesh has uniformly spaced, parallel strands. Dependent claim 6's "twisted filaments" were disclosed by Fireman's teaching of using "bundled threads" for its mesh, and claim 8's "air mattress" was explicitly disclosed in Hanlie.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because Hanlie taught the general concept of a PVC-mesh-PVC tensioning strap but did not detail the specific mesh layout. Fireman provided a well-known, conventional square grid mesh structure suitable for such an application. A POSITA would have found it obvious to implement Hanlie's general design using Fireman's specific, conventional mesh structure to achieve predictable strength and durability.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved substituting a known type of mesh into a known tensioning structure design, both used in inflatable products, leading to a high expectation of success.

Ground 2: Claims 2, 4-5 are obvious over Hanlie in view of Fireman and Liu.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hanlie, Fireman, and Liu (Application # 2007/0277324).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Hanlie/Fireman combination to address dependent claims requiring "a plurality of weld strips affixed to a first side of the weld sheet" (claim 2). Petitioner asserted that Hanlie's method of attaching its tensioning straps in a "U" or "Z" shape was a known design that created stress points. Liu was introduced because it specifically addressed this problem by teaching the use of additional "extending parts" (corresponding to the claimed "weld strips") to create a larger, more durable connection area between the tensioning structure and the mattress walls. Claim 5's "reinforcement strand" perpendicular to the tensile strands was met by the horizontal members of Fireman's square-grid mesh.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, recognizing the known stress-point weakness in Hanlie's U-shaped attachment, would be motivated to apply the known solution from Liu. Liu's "extending parts" were designed to improve the durability of beam-to-sheet connections in air mattresses. Applying this known technique to improve Hanlie's similar device would have been an obvious design choice to yield predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success: Applying a known reinforcement technique (Liu) to a known product (Hanlie/Fireman) to solve a known problem (stress at connection points) would have been straightforward for a POSITA.

Ground 3: Claims 1, 6-7, 9-10 are obvious over Peterson in view of Hanlie and Fireman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Peterson (Patent 5,924,144), Hanlie, and Fireman.

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Peterson disclosed an inflatable swimming pool with internal "vertical support webs" made of a single layer of PVC to connect the inner and outer walls. Petitioner argued a POSITA would replace Peterson's simple, single-layer PVC webs with the superior three-layer PVC-mesh-PVC tensioning structure taught by Hanlie. The specific details of the mesh structure (parallel, spaced strands of twisted filaments) and manufacturing ("hot lamination") would be supplied by Fireman, as argued in Ground 1. This combination met all limitations of the independent claims, and claim 9's "swimming pool" limitation was explicitly taught by Peterson.
    • Motivation to Combine: Hanlie explicitly taught that tensioning straps made of only a single layer of PVC (like Peterson's) were weak and "prone to break off." A POSITA would be motivated to solve this known problem by substituting Peterson's inferior webs with Hanlie's stronger, more durable PVC-mesh-PVC material. This motivation was amplified by Peterson's own disclosure that consumers desired deeper pools, which would increase pressure on the tensioning webs and exacerbate the weakness of single-layer PVC.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known, superior component (Hanlie's strap) to a known product (Peterson's pool) to improve a known weakness, which would yield the predictable result of a stronger inflatable pool.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claims 2-3 and 5 are obvious over Hanlie, Fireman, and Liu in view of Song (Application # 2012/0031265). Song was cited as an alternative to Liu for teaching symmetrical attachment structures to solve the same stress-point problem.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §325(d) - Same Art/Arguments: Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §325(d), acknowledging that Hanlie, Fireman, and Peterson were cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution. However, Petitioner contended the examiner never substantively applied these references in any rejection and materially erred by overlooking their key teachings. Specifically, Hanlie and Fireman directly contradicted the patentee's arguments for allowance over the cited art (Miller), which alleged that prior art only taught a "single layer" tensioning structure and lacked "spaced apart" strands.
  • §314(a) - Fintiv Factors: Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §314(a), stating that the co-pending district court litigation was in its very early stages, with no trial date set and no substantive issues addressed. Furthermore, the petition challenged all claims (1-10), while the district court case involved only a subset (1, 6-8, and 10), meaning the IPR would resolve the validity of claims not at issue in the litigation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-10 of the ’186 patent as unpatentable.