PTAB

IPR2020-01478

Attends Healthcare Products Inc v. Paul Hartmann AG

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Absorbent Incontinence Article With Improved Closure System
  • Brief Description: The ’398 patent relates to an absorbent incontinence diaper featuring a closure system with hook-and-loop fasteners. The purported invention is that the retaining forces between the fasteners and the diaper's side wings are greater than the retaining forces between the fasteners and the main chassis backsheet, which is claimed to improve fit and comfort.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Karami ’772 and Benning - Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-16, 19-22, 24, 25, and 28 are obvious over [Karami ’772](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2020-01478/doc/1003) in view of [Benning](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2020-01478/doc/1002).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Karami ’772 (Application # 2006/0058772) and Benning (Application # 2005/0256496).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Karami ’772 taught a diaper with a nonwoven backsheet and hook fasteners where the wings were treated (e.g., water-jet treated) to have a higher affinity for the hooks than the untreated central chassis, thus explicitly teaching differential retaining forces. However, Karami ’772 disclosed an integral-wing construction where the wings are part of a continuous backsheet. Benning disclosed the claimed diaper structure, including a central chassis with four discrete, separate side wings attached to its edges.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Benning’s separate-wing construction with Karami ’772’s differential fastening surfaces. The motivations included reducing manufacturing costs and complexity (as separate-wing designs allow for narrower machinery and less material waste) and enabling the use of different, optimized materials for the wings and chassis.
    • Expectation of Success: This modification was presented as a routine and predictable combination of known diaper design principles. A POSITA would expect that applying Karami '772's differential surface treatment to Benning's well-known diaper structure would successfully improve user comfort and manufacturability without undue experimentation.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Benning and Karami ’626 - Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11-16, 19-22, 24, 25, and 28 are obvious over [Benning](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2020-01478/doc/1002) in view of [Karami ’626](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2020-01478/doc/1004).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Benning (Application # 2005/0256496) and Karami ’626 (Application # 2003/0220626).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Benning provided the fundamental diaper structure with a chassis and four separate wings. Karami ’626 taught a closure system using hook fasteners that could engage any portion of a conventional nonwoven surface, thereby improving size-adjustability by eliminating the need for a dedicated landing zone. Crucially, Karami ’626 also taught using different basis weight nonwovens for different parts of a diaper—specifically, a higher basis weight for wings to provide strength and a lower basis weight for the backsheet to provide softness.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to modify Benning’s diaper by incorporating Karami ’626’s closure system to enhance size-adjustability and by using Karami '626's film-nonwoven backsheet to improve comfort. The core motivation was that selecting different basis weights for the wings and backsheet, as taught by Karami ’626 for functional reasons (strength vs. softness), would inherently and obviously result in the differential retaining forces recited in the ’398 patent's claims.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was portrayed as a straightforward application of known materials to achieve predictable improvements in diaper performance, with the differential forces being a natural consequence of optimizing different diaper components.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Benning, Karami ’626, and Stupperich - Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11, 16, 19-22, 24, and 25 are obvious over [Benning](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2020-01478/doc/1002) and [Karami ’626](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2020-01478/doc/1004) in view of [Stupperich](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2020-01478/doc/1009).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Benning (Application # 2005/0256496), Karami ’626 (Application # 2003/0220626), and Stupperich (German Application DE 10 2004 053 469 A1).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground augmented the combination of Benning and Karami ’626 with the teachings of Stupperich. Stupperich disclosed specific nonwoven materials with engineered bonding patterns designed to be engaged by hook fasteners, balancing secure closure with damage-free releasability. Stupperich explicitly detailed lower-basis-weight (30 gsm) and higher-basis-weight (45 gsm) versions of its nonwovens.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would incorporate Stupperich’s specialized nonwovens into the Benning/Karami ’626 diaper to achieve a superior balance of closure reliability and durability. It would have been obvious to use Stupperich’s stronger, higher-basis-weight nonwoven for the diaper wings and its softer, lower-basis-weight nonwoven for the backsheet, directly mapping to the claimed structure and yielding the claimed differential retaining forces.
    • Expectation of Success: The petition argued this was a predictable substitution of a known, improved material into an existing diaper design to achieve enhanced performance characteristics that were well-understood in the art.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on adding Miyamoto (’499 application) for an adhesive closure aid, Jacobs (Patent 5,814,178) for temperature treatment of nonwovens, Anderson (Patent 6,605,172) for ring-rolling to improve material properties, and Fernfors (’776 application) for adding reinforcement material at chassis-wing interfaces.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Closure Means Having Mechanical Closure Aids: Petitioner contended that if this term is treated as a means-plus-function limitation, its function is to "detachably fasten" and its corresponding structure is a "strip of material including hooks of a hook-and-loop fastener," optionally with adhesive. Petitioner argued formal construction was unnecessary as the prior art structures met this interpretation.
  • Foil: Petitioner argued "foil" should be construed to mean "film," based on the specification's language and the knowledge of a POSITA regarding diaper backsheets.
  • Over Abdomen Retaining Forces: Petitioner asserted that these forces are simply the shear forces required to separate the hook fastener from the nonwoven. It was argued that formal construction was not required because the obvious diaper structures in the prior art would inherently yield the claimed force ranges when measured by the test described in the ’398 patent.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • A central technical contention was that the claimed differential retaining forces are not an independent inventive concept but a natural, inherent, and predictable consequence of an obvious design choice. Petitioner argued that a POSITA would routinely use a stronger, higher-basis-weight nonwoven for the wings (which endure more stress) and a softer, lower-basis-weight nonwoven for the backsheet (for comfort and cost), and this well-known practice of material optimization directly results in the claimed differences in fastener holding power.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial by highlighting a prior inter partes review (IPR) against a related patent (the "Medline IPR"). That IPR was instituted on similar grounds (including Benning and Karami ’772) but was terminated before a final written decision. Petitioner contended that institution would serve judicial efficiency by resolving a patentability question the Board previously found likely to succeed. Further, Petitioner noted that key combinations in the present petition, particularly those including Karami ’626, were never cited during prosecution or addressed in the prior IPR.

7. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-30 of Patent 8,784,398 as unpatentable.