PTAB

IPR2023-01324

Sharkninja Inc v. Dyson Technology Ltd

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Hand-Held Blower Appliance
  • Brief Description: The ’662 patent relates to a hand-held hair care appliance, such as a hairdryer, comprising a body and a handle. The invention centers on the handle's construction, which includes an inner wall disposed radially inward from an outer wall, and a primary fluid flow path that is non-linear from the inlet to the outlet.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 26-28 are anticipated by Jeong under 35 U.S.C. §102

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Jeong (Application # US 2013/0111777).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Jeong, which discloses a hairdryer, anticipates every limitation of the challenged claims. Jeong’s housing 10 functions as the claimed "handle" and its discharge nozzle 30 functions as the "body." Petitioner asserted that the handle's "outer wall" is the external housing 10, and the "inner wall" is the internal motor housing 18, which is explicitly disposed radially inward from housing 10. The primary fluid flow path in Jeong, from inlet slots 14 through the handle and body to the discharge hole 38, is non-linear, as the airflow direction changes by approximately 90 degrees. This non-linear path also satisfies the limitations of dependent claims 27 (flow in a first direction in the handle and a second in the body) and 28 (substantially orthogonal flow).

Ground 2: Claims 26-28 are anticipated by Yoshida under 35 U.S.C. §102

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Yoshida (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP S 60-249907).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Yoshida, which discloses a brush-style hairdryer, also teaches all claim limitations. The overall housing 1 of Yoshida constitutes the claimed "handle," while the internal heater enclosing frame 5 constitutes the "body." Petitioner contended that housing 1 is the "outer wall" and the cylindrical wind tunnel 7 located inside it is the "inner wall," which is disposed radially inward. The airflow from the suction ports (13, 14) through the handle and body to the discharge ports (59) is non-linear, as it is deflected by a partition plate (55) at an angle of approximately 90 degrees relative to the handle's airflow direction. This configuration was argued to meet all limitations of independent claim 26 and dependent claims 27 and 28.

Ground 3: Claims 26-28 are anticipated by Jeffs, or in the alternative, are obvious over Jeffs in view of Jeong or Yoshida under 35 U.S.C. §103

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Jeffs (Patent 5,407,135), Jeong (Application # US 2013/0111777), and Yoshida (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP S 60-249907).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted a two-pronged argument. First, that Jeffs, a hand-held air blower for drying paint, anticipates all structural limitations of the claims. Jeffs discloses a "body" (barrel 21) and a "handle" (10). The handle comprises an "outer wall" (the pistol grip 46) and an "inner wall" (the high-pressure air inlet channel 35), which is radially inward. The primary fluid path from the inlet (union 36) to the outlet (jet 12) is non-linear, changing direction by approximately 90 degrees. Petitioner argued that the "hair care appliance" preamble of claim 26 is not a limitation, making Jeffs an anticipating reference.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): In the alternative, if the "hair care appliance" preamble is deemed limiting, Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to a POSITA to use the Jeffs blower for hair care. The motivation arises from the structural and functional similarities between the Jeffs blower and the hairdryers of Jeong and Yoshida. The ’662 patent itself notes blowers are used for drying various substances including "paint or hair," directly linking the intended use of Jeffs to the claimed application.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in using the Jeffs device to dry hair. The device operates in a similar fashion to a conventional hairdryer, and its performance data shows airflow rates within the typical range for hairdryers. The lack of a heating element in Jeffs is immaterial, as the ’662 patent describes the heater as an optional feature.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "A hair care appliance comprising": Petitioner dedicated significant argument to this preamble term from claim 26. The primary position was that the term is not limiting because it merely states an intended use and the claim body describes a structurally complete invention. Based on this construction, Petitioner argued Jeffs anticipates the claims. Alternatively, if the Board finds the term is a limitation, Petitioner argued the claims would be obvious over Jeffs in view of other hair care appliances like Jeong and Yoshida.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate under both §314(a) and §325(d).
  • Under §314(a) (Fintiv): Petitioner asserted that because it filed the IPR petition before any infringement complaint was filed by the Patent Owner, the Fintiv factors weigh strongly in favor of institution.
  • Under §325(d): Petitioner argued its challenge presents new and non-cumulative arguments. While Jeong was submitted in an IDS during prosecution, there is no evidence the examiner substantively considered it against the claims that were ultimately allowed. The primary references for Ground 2 (Yoshida) and Ground 3 (Jeffs) were never considered by the examiner. Furthermore, the examiner's rejection relied on a different reference (Sarocchi) that allegedly lacked the key structural elements disclosed in the prior art asserted in this petition.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 26-28 of Patent 9,414,662 as unpatentable.