PTAB

IPR2022-00831

PPC Broadband Inc v. Times Fiber Communications Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method for Installing a Cable Reel in a Bag
  • Brief Description: The ’957 patent discloses a method for installing and dispensing a coil of cable from a reusable reel system housed within a bag. The system uses duplicate support frames secured to the base and cover of the bag, which engage flanges on the cable reel to allow for payout.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 9-19 are obvious over Brochure in view of Blunt.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Brochure (a published brochure for PPC’s Perfect Tote™ 500 Eco reel tote bag) and Blunt (Application # 2012/0168554).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued the combination of Brochure and Blunt disclosed every limitation of the challenged claims. Brochure taught a method of installing a cable reel in a fabric bag, which included securing a "second support frame" via straps to the bag’s cover. Petitioner asserted that for the system to function as described (fitting a flange's center hole over a "frame hub" upon insertion), a POSITA would have understood that a corresponding "first support frame" must be secured to the bag's base. Blunt taught a reusable cable reel system within a container, explicitly disclosing both a first support frame secured to the container's base and a second support frame secured to its cover. Critically, Blunt also taught the key hub structure claimed: a first hub portion with an elongated annular wall and a second hub portion with a truncated annular wall that is receivable within the first, allowing the reel to be separated for replenishing the cable. Petitioner mapped these elements directly to the limitations of independent claim 9.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was to improve the "Environmentally-Friendly" bag of Brochure with the reusable, waste-reducing reel structure of Blunt. A POSITA would combine Blunt’s separable two-part hub design with Brochure's bag to create a superior product where the cable could be easily and economically replenished without disposing of the entire reel, aligning with the stated environmental goals of both references.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because both references related to the same field of cable dispensing, used functionally similar components (containers, reels, flanges, support hubs), and the combination involved applying a known technique (Blunt’s reusable reel) to a similar device (Brochure’s bag) to achieve a predictable improvement in reusability and environmental friendliness.

Ground 2: Claims 9-19 are obvious over Brochure in view of Blunt and Johanson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Brochure, Blunt (Application # 2012/0168554), and Johanson (Patent 7,938,357).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground reinforced the arguments of Ground 1, with the addition of Johanson to further demonstrate the obviousness of using duplicate support frames. Petitioner argued that Johanson, which disclosed a cable dispenser box with a pair of identical, mirror-image "end plates" (support frames) on opposite sides of the box to support a spool, provided an additional, explicit teaching for the claimed first and second support frames. The incremental contribution of Johanson was to show that using duplicate frames was a notoriously old, simple, and cost-effective design choice in the art.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of Johanson with the Brochure/Blunt system to achieve a simple, stable, and balanced design for rotatably supporting the reel. The use of identical, duplicate parts, as taught by Johanson, was a well-known engineering principle to reduce manufacturing costs by requiring only one part to be made for both sides of the container.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because implementing Johanson's teaching of duplicate frames would involve only known and duplicative methods, such as using straps to secure the first support frame to the base in the same manner Brochure showed for the second support frame on the cover.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that institution should not be denied under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the primary prior art references, Brochure and Blunt, were not cited or relied upon by the Examiner during the prosecution of the ’957 patent. Therefore, Petitioner contended the art presented in the petition was not cumulative of the art previously considered by the USPTO, and the factors governing discretionary denial weighed heavily in favor of institution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 9-19 of the ’957 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.