PTAB

PGR2021-00083

LonDon Luxury LLC v. E & E Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Heating Blanket Having An Embedded Control Switch And An External Control Module
  • Brief Description: The ’376 patent relates to a heated blanket system featuring a control switch and display embedded directly within the blanket fabric. This system also includes a separate, external control module that is detachably connected to the blanket.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-5 and 10-13 are obvious over Chen in view of Homedics Video II

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chen (Application # 2014/0034628) and Homedics Video II (a 2018 YouTube video demonstrating a commercial product).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Chen taught a heated blanket with an embedded switch unit and display, satisfying the core structural elements of the challenged claims. However, Chen’s controls were not explicitly soft or water-secure. Homedics Video II disclosed a commercially available heated throw with a rubberized, soft control switch and display panel integrated into the blanket, which was shown to be machine washable. This, Petitioner asserted, taught the limitations of a "soft control switch" that is "water secure for washing."
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the teachings to improve Chen’s design with the known, desirable features of a soft, comfortable, and washable control interface, as demonstrated by the Homedics product. Making textile products like blankets washable is a strong, common-sense design goal.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination amounted to a simple substitution of a known component type (a water-secure, soft control panel) into an existing blanket design to achieve a predictable improvement in user comfort and convenience.

Ground 2: Claims 1-5 and 10-13 are obvious over Chen in view of Lauck II and Homedics Video II

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chen (Application # 2014/0034628), Lauck II (Patent 3,437,792), and Homedics Video II.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground maintained the core combination of Chen and Homedics Video II from Ground 1 while adding Lauck II, a reference cited by Chen itself. Petitioner contended that Lauck II reinforced the obviousness of key features, such as having an external, detachable control module and utilizing separate power wires distinct from the heating wires. Lauck II explicitly taught that its electronic components could be detached from the blanket to allow for cleaning.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation remained to create an improved, user-friendly, and washable heated blanket. A POSITA reading Chen would be directed to Lauck II and would have been motivated to incorporate its teachings regarding a detachable external module to facilitate easy washing—a goal aligned with making the embedded controls water-secure per Homedics.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because the combination merely integrated well-known features from the prior art. Combining Chen's embedded controls, Homedics' water-secure design, and Lauck II's detachable external module involved applying known design principles to achieve the predictable result of a fully washable and functional heated blanket.

Ground 3: Claims 6-8 and 14-16 are obvious over Chen, Homedics Video II, and Zabrowsky

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chen (Application # 2014/0034628), Homedics Video II, and Zabrowsky (Application # 2003/0052120).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted dependent claims requiring microcontroller units (MCUs) in both the embedded control switch and the external control module for communication and control. Petitioner asserted that the base combination of Chen and Homedics established the basic blanket structure. Zabrowsky was added to teach the use of MCUs, as it disclosed a remote-control system for an electric blanket where both the remote (analogous to the embedded switch) and the base unit (analogous to the external module) contained microcontrollers to transmit commands and modulate electric current.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to include MCUs in the blanket system of Chen and Homedics to provide more advanced, reliable, and safe control features, which were common in consumer electronics of the time. Zabrowsky demonstrated the advantage of using MCUs for communication between a user interface and a control module in the specific context of heated blankets.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in integrating MCUs into the blanket system. This modification represented the application of a known, common component (an MCU) to a known system (a heated blanket) to add predictable functionality, such as precise temperature control and communication between components.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §324(a) and §325(d) would be inappropriate.
  • Regarding Fintiv factors, Petitioner asserted that the co-pending district court litigation was in its early stages with no trial date set, weighing in favor of institution.
  • Regarding §325(d), Petitioner argued that the primary prior art references and combinations (Chen, Lauck II, Homedics) were never considered by the PTO during prosecution. Although Zabrowsky was of record, it was not applied in combination with the other references to challenge the claims requiring MCUs.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests that the Board institute Post-Grant Review and cancel claims 1-8 and 10-16 of the ’376 patent as unpatentable.