PTAB

IPR2025-00471

Ep Family Corp v. Office Kick Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Vertically Adjusting Desktop Workspace
  • Brief Description: The ’843 patent discloses a desktop workspace that can be placed on an existing surface, such as a desk. It features a work surface platform and a base connected by a height-adjustable scissor lift mechanism that uses a locking gas spring to raise, lower, and secure the platform at various heights.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 6-14, 16, and 17 are obvious over Lindahl in view of Yamamoto and in further view of Clark.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lindahl (WO 9117906), Yamamoto (Patent 4,574,785), and Clark (Patent D308,537).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the primary references, Lindahl and Yamamoto, both disclose the core elements of a vertically adjustable platform using a scissor lift mechanism. Lindahl teaches a scissor lift table that specifically incorporates a locking gas spring with a handle to adjust and set the platform height, satisfying the key actuator limitations of claim 1. Yamamoto teaches a scissor lift for a medical bed that can collapse to a fully lowered, compact position where the pivot arms are aligned. For the limitation of an "elevated platform surface" sitting on the work surface, Petitioner pointed to Clark, which discloses the ornamental design for a computer printer stand. Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would understand Clark's utilitarian function as an elevated platform with four legs.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Lindahl and Yamamoto to achieve the benefits of both: Yamamoto's greater height adjustability and compactness when fully collapsed, and Lindahl’s simpler, self-contained locking gas spring actuator. A POSITA would be further motivated to incorporate Yamamoto's broader base to prevent the legs of the Lindahl-style device from indenting soft surfaces like carpet. Adding the Clark printer stand to the work surface of the combined Lindahl/Yamamoto device would be a simple and predictable step to ergonomically elevate an item like a printer or monitor.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involves integrating known, compatible components (scissor lifts) to achieve predictable results. Modifying a scissor lift to collapse further or using a stand on a desk are common design choices.

Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 6-14, 16, and 17 are obvious over Clarke in view of Lindahl and in further view of Clark.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Clarke (Patent 3,282,566), Lindahl (WO 9117906), and Clark (Patent D308,537).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presents an alternative combination where Clarke serves as the primary reference for a fully collapsible scissor lift mechanism. Clarke discloses a scissor lift table that can be lifted from a completely flat position using a hydraulic cylinder. Lindahl is introduced for its teaching of a locking gas spring. Clark is again relied upon for its disclosure of an elevated printer stand.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that a POSITA would be motivated to substitute Clarke's complex hydraulic cylinder system—which requires external hoses, valves, and pumps—with Lindahl's simpler, self-contained locking gas spring. This modification would be particularly desirable when adapting the design for a lighter-duty application, such as a desktop workspace, resulting in a simpler and more cost-effective product. The motivation to then place the Clark stand on top of this modified workspace is identical to that asserted in Ground 1.
    • Expectation of Success: Replacing one type of known actuator (hydraulic cylinder) with another (locking gas spring) in a standard scissor lift mechanism would have been a straightforward design choice for a POSITA with a high expectation of success.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that the claims are obvious over Huang in view of Clarke and Clark (Ground 3), and over Yamamoto in view of Zhang and Clark (Ground 4). These grounds relied on similar theories of combining a primary scissor lift reference with secondary art to teach specific features, such as using a different primary reference for a collapsible table (Huang) or a reference teaching a pair of locking gas springs (Zhang).

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • The petition noted the existence of a co-pending litigation, EP Family Corp. v. Office Kick, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-0067 AB (PVCx), in the Central District of California, which presents the same asserted claims. No explicit arguments against discretionary denial under Fintiv were presented.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 6-14, 16, and 17 of Patent 11,849,843 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.