PTAB

PGR2015-00018

Telebrands Corp v. Tinnus Enterprises LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Filling Containers with Fluids
  • Brief Description: The ’066 patent discloses an apparatus for simultaneously filling multiple containers, such as water balloons. The apparatus features a housing connected to a fluid source, a plurality of flexible hollow tubes extending from the housing, and containers removably attached to the tubes with elastic fasteners that automatically seal the containers upon detachment.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Cooper and Saggio - Claims 1-4, 8, and 14 are obvious over Cooper in view of Saggio.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Cooper (Patent 5,826,803) and Saggio (Application # 2013/0118640).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Cooper, which discloses the "Noodlehead" lawn sprinkler, teaches a housing with a fluid inlet, a common face with multiple holes, and a plurality of flexible hollow tubes extending from those holes. While Cooper is silent on attaching containers, Saggio teaches a system for filling multiple self-sealing water balloons (containers) that use an elastic internal membrane (elastic fastener) to automatically seal upon detachment. Petitioner contended that Cooper discloses every element of independent claim 1 except for the self-sealing containers. Saggio’s self-sealing balloons supply these missing elements.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine Cooper’s multi-tube fluid delivery system with Saggio’s self-sealing balloons to achieve the predictable result of an apparatus that can fill multiple water balloons at once, a known desire in the art. Petitioner noted that the inventor of a similar commercial product, the ZORBZ Replicator, did exactly this by attaching water balloons to the flexible tubes of the Noodlehead sprinkler.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involves attaching known self-sealing balloons to a known multi-tube water dispenser to achieve the intended and predictable function of filling them.

Ground 2: Obviousness over ZORBZ Replicator and Sealing Mechanisms - Claims 1-4, 8, and 14 are obvious over the ZORBZ Replicator in view of Harter, Saggio, or Lee.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The ZORBZ Replicator (a device disclosed in an August 19, 2014 YouTube video) in view of Harter (WO 2015/027187), Saggio (Application # 2013/0118640), or Lee (Application # 2005/0004430).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the ZORBZ Replicator, publicly disclosed more than one month before the ’066 patent’s effective filing date, is a physical embodiment of the claimed invention. The video shows a housing with a fluid inlet, flexible tubes, and attached self-sealing water balloons that detach and seal when shaken. Petitioner argued this single reference teaches nearly every limitation. The secondary references (Harter, Saggio, or Lee) were cited to explicitly detail the types of known self-sealing mechanisms (elastic fasteners) that a POSA would understand are used with such balloons, whether it is Harter’s embedded elastic ring, Saggio’s internal membrane, or Lee’s external rubber band.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA viewing the ZORBZ Replicator would be motivated to implement it using any well-known self-sealing balloon technology. Harter, Saggio, and Lee all provide examples of such technology that were known in the art and are functionally equivalent for the purpose of automatically sealing a filled balloon.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would yield the predictable result shown in the ZORBZ Replicator video, as it merely involves using known self-sealing components with a disclosed filling apparatus.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Cooper, Saggio, and Berardi - Claims 11-13 are obvious over Cooper and Saggio in further view of Berardi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Cooper (Patent 5,826,803), Saggio (Application # 2013/0118640), and Berardi (Patent 8,479,776).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targets dependent claims 11-13, which add a valve with an on/off lever to the apparatus of claim 1. As established in Ground 1, Cooper and Saggio together teach the base apparatus. Berardi was introduced because it explicitly discloses a valve with a lever for controlling fluid flow through a hose, including a threaded connection to a housing.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would find it obvious to add a control valve, as taught by Berardi, to the filling apparatus of Cooper/Saggio. Adding a valve is a simple, common-sense modification to any fluid-delivery device to provide control over the fluid flow, which Berardi shows in an analogous context. Cooper itself acknowledges that "alternate means may be used to cause different water flow rates."
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would expect success in adding a standard valve to a hose-based apparatus, as this is a routine and predictable integration of known components.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted §112 invalidity grounds, arguing the terms "substantially filled" and "connecting force" are indefinite. Petitioner also asserted an alternative obviousness ground for claims 1-4, 7-9, and 14 over Cooper, Saggio, and Lee, arguing Lee's rubber band is an alternative "elastic fastener" if Saggio's internal membrane is found not to be one.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Elastic Fastener": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "any internal or external object or structure that regulates, directs, or controls the flow of fluids, by opening, closing, or partially obstructing a passageway of fluid flow in a container." This broad construction was argued to be supported by the specification and necessary to encompass the various sealing mechanisms disclosed in the prior art, such as Saggio’s internal membrane and Lee’s external rubber band.
  • "Container": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "an object for holding a fluid that expands in response to fluid flow therein." This construction emphasizes the expandable nature of the containers (balloons) central to the patent's operation.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • "Connecting Force" Limitations are Laws of Physics: Petitioner contended that claim limitations reciting a "connecting force" that is overcome by the weight of a "substantially filled" container, or by shaking, are merely recitations of Newton's Second Law of physics (F=ma). Petitioner argued that the "connecting force" is simply the static friction holding the balloon on the tube, and this force is overcome when the gravitational force (weight) or an applied acceleration (shaking) exceeds it. It was argued these functional limitations describe a natural phenomenon, not a patentable invention, and add no patentable weight to the claims over the prior art structures.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of Post-Grant Review and cancellation of claims 1-14 of the ’066 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 and 112.