PTAB

IPR2025-00111

BabyBjorn Ab v. Ergo Baby Carrier Inc

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: ADJUSTABLE CHILD CARRIER
Brief Description: The ’055 patent discloses an adjustable child carrier designed to support a child’s pelvis and thighs in an ergonomic position across a range of ages. The carrier features a bucket seat with adjustment areas to modify its depth and height to accommodate children of various sizes.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Andren (Application # 20140014692) and Lundh (Application # 20180199730).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Andren discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Andren teaches an adjustable child carrier with a pouch that forms a bucket seat, shoulder straps, and an upper portion that functions as a neck support by folding up or down. Petitioner asserted that zippers on Andren’s carrier function as the claimed "at least one thigh support adjuster," which can be fully closed, fully open, or partially closed to create the claimed first, second, and third settings that adjust the body length.
- Motivation to Combine: If Andren is found not to teach a single adjuster coupled to both thigh supports, Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine Andren with Lundh. Lundh discloses a common drawstring that simultaneously adjusts zippers on both sides of a carrier. A POSITA would combine Lundh’s single-pull adjustment mechanism with Andren’s carrier to achieve the benefit of simpler, one-handed adjustment and to better accommodate a child in a desirable "frog position."
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in this combination because it involves integrating well-understood mechanical components (zippers and drawstrings) common in the field of child carriers.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Sharp (Patent # 4,009,808) and Lundh (Application # 20180199730).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Sharp, a 1975 patent, discloses an adjustable "Baby Pack" that anticipates the claims. Sharp's carrier includes an inner seat that provides support, shoulder straps, and a head support. The key adjustment mechanism consists of a series of removable seams. Petitioner argued that progressively removing these seams makes increasingly wider portions of the seat available, thereby defining the claimed first, second, and third settings that adjust the body length and seat depth to accommodate a growing child. These removable seams, therefore, constitute the "thigh support adjuster."
- Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that the primary drawback of Sharp's adjustment mechanism is its permanence; once a seam is ripped, the carrier cannot be resized for a smaller child. A POSITA would be motivated to replace Sharp's destructive seam-ripping adjustment with the reversible hook-and-eye adjusters taught by Lundh. This modification provides the obvious benefit of allowing the carrier to be re-used for a second, smaller child.
- Expectation of Success: The proposed modification is a simple substitution of one known adjustment mechanism for another, which a POSITA could implement with a reasonable expectation of success.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Kalouskova (Czech Republic Publication # CZ2010531A3) and Lundh (Application # 20180199730).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Kalouskova's carrier anticipates the claims by teaching a body with a bucket seat, a headrest (neck support), and shoulder straps. The adjustability is achieved via fastening laces on either side of the carrier that can be tightened to various degrees of compression. Petitioner asserted that these laces function as the "thigh support adjusters" and that different levels of tension create the claimed first, second, and third settings to adjust the body length.
- Motivation to Combine: To the extent Kalouskova's separate laces are not considered "at least one" adjuster, Petitioner argued a POSITA would have found it obvious to incorporate an adjuster from Lundh. A POSITA would replace Kalouskova’s lace-and-clip system with Lundh’s hook-and-eye connection as a simple substitution of one known adjustment element for another to increase user convenience and improve child comfort.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in combining these features, as it represents an interchangeable design choice between known types of mechanical fasteners used in adjustable textile products.

Petitioner dedicated a substantial portion of its argument to the construction of the term "at least one thigh support adjuster."
Petitioner argued this term should be construed as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because "adjuster" is a nonce word that fails to recite sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed adjustment functions.
Critically, Petitioner contended that if the term is construed under § 112(f), the claims are invalid as indefinite because the ’055 patent specification fails to disclose any corresponding structure for a single "thigh support adjuster" and does not clearly link the term to any specific component described.

Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-15, 19-24, and 28-30 of the ’055 patent as unpatentable.