PTAB

IPR2024-00602

i4F Licensing NV v. Vilox AB

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Joining System for Floor Panels
  • Brief Description: The ’425 patent relates to a mechanical joining system for floor panels. The system uses coupling parts on opposite sides of a panel, including a tongue and a groove, where the groove is formed with two locking recesses and the tongue with two corresponding locking lugs for horizontal engagement.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 5-12, and 15 are anticipated by Miller

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Miller (Patent 7,441,384).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Miller, which was cited but not applied during prosecution, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Petitioner contended that Miller’s FIG. 3 illustrates a floor panel joining system with a tongue (20) and groove (23) that includes the claimed "dual consecutive locking recesses" and "dual consecutive locking lugs." Specifically, Miller’s design was asserted to show a first locking recess within the groove and a second in the lip portion, which engage a first locking lug on the tongue's lower tip and a second on its root portion. For the limitation requiring a tension force achieved by elastic compression, Petitioner argued that Miller incorporates by reference Moriau (Patent 6,006,486), which explicitly discloses this feature. Petitioner provided detailed annotated figures from Miller to map its structure to each element of independent claim 1 and the relevant dependent claims.

Ground 2: Claims 1-15 are obvious over Miller

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Miller (Patent 7,441,384).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: As an alternative to anticipation, Petitioner argued that all challenged claims are obvious over Miller alone. For any limitations the Board finds not explicitly disclosed in Miller (such as the tension force or specific locking geometries), Petitioner asserted they would have been obvious modifications. The argument for the tension force relied on Miller's incorporation of Moriau, which taught combining its tensioning features with various locking mechanisms. The arguments for geometric limitations in dependent claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 asserted that features like the alignment of an intermediate ridge or specific thickness ratios were mere matters of obvious design choice with no criticality ascribed to them in the ’425 patent.
    • Motivation to Combine (within Miller/Moriau): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to incorporate Moriau’s tensioning features into Miller’s locking profile to increase horizontal locking strength, a known concern in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: Given the similarity between the locking profiles of Miller and Moriau, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining their features to achieve a stronger lock. Modifying profile dimensions to achieve the claimed geometries was presented as a routine, minimal adjustment within the skill of a POSITA.

Ground 3: Claims 1, 2, 4-12, 14, and 15 are obvious over Miller in view of Roy

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Miller (Patent 7,441,384), Roy (Patent 6,216,409).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: To the extent Miller is found not to disclose the claimed dual locking recesses and lugs, Petitioner argued Roy explicitly teaches this feature. Roy discloses a floor panel with a double locking recess/lug configuration (recesses 17, 21 and raised portions 13, 20) to provide horizontal locking. Petitioner asserted that Roy teaches all the structural locking features of independent claim 1 that might be considered absent from Miller. For dependent claims 4 and 14, Roy was argued to teach the claimed height relationship of the intermediate ridge and an introduction angle greater than 10 degrees, respectively.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Miller's system with Roy's teachings to improve a known problem: increasing horizontal locking strength. Both Miller and Roy recognized this as a concern. Miller itself stated its teachings were applicable to other coupling profiles known in the industry, providing an explicit suggestion to combine its system with features like those in Roy.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references disclose similar tongue-and-groove rotational locking mechanisms for floor panels. The proposed modification—creating a more pronounced curvature and dual lock based on Roy’s known strength-enhancing design—was not complex and involved slight dimensional adjustments well within the skill of a POSITA.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-15 of the ’425 patent as unpatentable.