PTAB

IPR2021-01179

Ice Castles LLC v. YoungstRom James

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method for Creating Ice Structures
  • Brief Description: The ’204 patent discloses methods for building multi-story ice structures from "ice logs." The methods involve filling flexible or rigid "sleeves" with water and allowing the water to freeze. The patent emphasizes that flexible sleeves are advantageous as they allow for a wide variety of aesthetic shapes determined by the creator.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Instructables - Claims 1, 3-12, 14, and 15 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Instructables.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Instructables (a March 5, 2012, online publication describing a method to build an ice sculpture).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Instructables, a guide for building an "ice castle," discloses every element of the challenged claims. Instructables teaches selecting balloons (the claimed "sleeves"), filling them with water, allowing them to freeze into ice logs, and arranging the logs to form a structure. Petitioner asserted that balloons are inherently "sufficiently flexible that the cross-sectional shape... changes... as the sleeve is filled with water," meeting a key limitation of independent claim 1. The petition further detailed how Instructables' text and images explicitly or inherently disclose dependent claim limitations, such as using balloons of different sizes (claim 5), shaping balloons around objects to create desired forms like arcuate logs (claim 8), and arranging the resulting ice logs to create features like tunnels (claim 9).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Instructables and Christensen - Claims 1-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are obvious over Instructables in view of Christensen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Instructables (a 2012 online publication) and Christensen (Patent 10,422,564).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that if Instructables were found to not teach every limitation, the combination with Christensen renders the claims obvious. Christensen discloses an apparatus and method for constructing ice structures using "icicles" (ice logs) formed by freezing water in tubes made of materials like polyethylene or polypropylene. Petitioner contended these materials are known to be flexible, thus teaching the "flexible sleeve" limitation. Christensen explicitly teaches elements that supplement Instructables, such as breaking an ice log to create smaller pieces (relevant to claim 2) and sealing the ends of tubes by "any number of suitable means," which would encompass tying a knot as recited in claim 16.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references because they both address the same problem of forming ice logs within sleeves for building ice structures. A POSITA would have found it obvious to apply the more structured, large-scale techniques from Christensen to the creative, small-scale methods taught by Instructables to achieve a desired structure.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination merely applies known techniques for forming and modifying ice logs from one context (Christensen) to another similar context (Instructables).

Ground 3: Obviousness over Instructables, DIYNetwork, and Christensen ’042 - Claim 17 is obvious over Instructables in view of DIYNetwork and Christensen ’042.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Instructables (a 2012 online publication), DIYNetwork (a 2015 webpage on building deck railings), and Christensen ’042 (Patent 8,511,042).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targets claim 17, which recites forming holes in a first ice log, inserting second ice logs into the holes, and using a binder like slush to secure them. Petitioner argued that Instructables provides the basic method of creating ice logs. DIYNetwork, which teaches joining wooden logs by cutting holes in one and inserting others, supplies the analogous technique for joining ice logs. Finally, Christensen ’042 explicitly teaches using a "slush of ice in liquid water" to join icicles together to form a framework, directly teaching the claimed binder limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA tasked with constructing an ice structure as taught by Instructables would look to common building techniques for joining log-like elements. The method of inserting one log into another, as taught by DIYNetwork, is a fundamental construction principle. To secure the connection, the POSITA would naturally use a known ice-bonding agent, such as the slush explicitly disclosed for this purpose in Christensen ’042.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying simple, well-known mechanical joining techniques and binding agents to the field of ice construction, making the successful outcome predictable.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner also asserted that claims 1, 5, 7, and 12 are anticipated by Christensen and that claim 13 is obvious over the combination of Instructables and DIYNetwork.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’204 patent as unpatentable.