PTAB

IPR2025-00497

Ep Family Corp v. Office Kick Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Desktop Workspace that Adjusts Vertically
  • Brief Description: The ’926 patent discloses a desktop workspace converter designed to sit on an existing desk. The technology utilizes a height adjustment mechanism, typically including a set of scissoring pivot arms and a locking gas spring, to raise and lower a work surface platform relative to a base.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-10, 12, 14-16, and 18 are obvious over Lindahl in view of Yamamoto and in further view of Zottel.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lindahl (WO 9117906), Yamamoto (Patent 4,574,785), and Zottel (Patent 2,225,243).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lindahl and Yamamoto both disclose the core elements of the challenged claims: a vertically adjustable workspace using a scissor lift mechanism with a work surface, a base, pivot arms, and a cylindrical actuator. Lindahl specifically teaches using a locking gas spring for height adjustment and locking. Yamamoto teaches a scissor lift mechanism that can collapse to a fully lowered, compact position where the pivot points align. Petitioner asserted that Zottel, an ordinary office desk design, teaches the limitation of a slidable tray (a central drawer) positioned under the work surface.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Lindahl and Yamamoto to achieve the benefits of both: the simple, self-contained locking gas spring from Lindahl and the enhanced compactness and vertical range of motion from Yamamoto's fully collapsible design. A POSITA would then be motivated to add the drawer from Zottel to this combined adjustable platform to incorporate the well-known and desirable feature of storage into the workspace, a simple and common design modification.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved integrating known mechanical elements for their established purposes. A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because adding a standard drawer to a desk and combining two compatible scissor-lift mechanisms are predictable engineering tasks.

Ground 2: Claims 1-10, 12, 14-16, and 18 are obvious over Clarke in view of Lindahl and in further view of Zottel.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Clarke (Patent 3,282,566), Lindahl (WO 9117906), and Zottel (Patent 2,225,243).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground substitutes Clarke for Yamamoto as a primary reference. Petitioner argued that Clarke teaches a scissor lift mechanism capable of lifting from a completely flat, collapsed position, similar to Yamamoto. Lindahl again provides the teaching of a locking gas spring as the actuator. Zottel provides the teaching of a slidable drawer under the work surface.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation is similar to Ground 1. A POSITA would be motivated to modify Clarke’s design, which uses a complex hydraulic cylinder, by replacing it with the simpler, self-contained locking gas spring taught by Lindahl. This modification would make the device more suitable for lighter-duty applications, such as a desktop converter, by reducing complexity and cost. The addition of Zottel's drawer is again presented as an obvious inclusion of a conventional feature to enhance utility.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success, as swapping a hydraulic actuator for a gas spring in a scissor lift is a well-understood and predictable design choice in mechanical engineering, as is adding a drawer to a desk.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that the claims are obvious over Huang (Application # 2014/0041554) in view of Clarke and Zottel, and over Yamamoto in view of Zhang (CN 203934825) and Zottel. These grounds relied on similar theories of combining known scissor lift table designs with the conventional addition of an under-desk drawer.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-10, 12, 14-16, and 18 of the ’926 patent as unpatentable.