PTAB

PGR2024-00003

COLLEGE PRODUCTS, INC. v. Intirion Corporation

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Multiple Linked Appliance with Auxiliary Outlet
  • Brief Description: The ’745 patent describes a combined microwave-refrigerator appliance. The system manages power by cutting electricity to the refrigerator when the microwave is in use and includes features such as a smoke sensor for safety shutdowns and USB ports for charging external devices.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Emma and ISDU - Claims 1, 13, 15, 20, 22, and 24-25 are obvious over Emma in view of ISDU.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Emma (Application # 2009/0188911) and ISDU (a 2007 Northeastern University publication).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Emma, a parent application to the ’745 patent, taught all major elements of the claimed microwave-refrigerator combination, including the power management control circuit that deactivates the refrigerator during microwave operation. However, Emma lacked a smoke sensor. ISDU, a publication describing an "Integrated Smoke detector Unit for Commercial Microwave Ovens," expressly taught integrating a smoke sensor into a microwave to temporarily disable its operation upon smoke detection and subsequently allow the user to reset the microwave.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Emma and ISDU to add a known and desirable safety feature (smoke detection and shutdown) to a known appliance combination. Both references relate to improving the functionality of microwave ovens. A POSITA would have been motivated to integrate the safety features of ISDU into the "all-in-one" appliance of Emma to create a safer, more commercially attractive product.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because combining these known elements for their intended purposes was predictable. The petition noted it would be "obvious to try" placing the sensor inside the microwave, as taught by ISDU, to ensure it functioned as intended.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Emma, ISDU, and Quezada - Claims 12, 14, 19, 23, and 26 are obvious over Emma and ISDU, further in view of Quezada.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Emma (Application # 2009/0188911), ISDU (a 2007 Northeastern University publication), and Quezada (Application # 2012/0276763).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the combination of Emma and ISDU to address the dependent claims reciting a USB port for charging. Emma taught providing auxiliary outlets on the microwave for charging devices like cell phones. Quezada taught a wall-mountable power receptacle that combined a standard AC outlet with a USB port and the necessary AC-to-DC conversion circuitry.
    • Motivation to Combine: By the priority date of the ’745 patent, USB had become a standard for charging electronic devices. A POSITA would have found it a simple and obvious substitution to replace or supplement the conventional auxiliary outlets in Emma with the more modern and convenient USB port technology taught by Quezada. This modification would serve the same purpose as Emma's auxiliary outlets—charging small devices—but in a more standardized way.
    • Expectation of Success: The substitution would have been a predictable design choice, yielding the expected result of a USB port that provides charging power and is deactivated during microwave operation, consistent with Emma's power management scheme.

Ground 3: Indefiniteness under §112 - Claims 1-28 are invalid as indefinite.

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground is based on the patent's own language. Independent claims 1, 15, and 24 recite a smoke sensor in "operative connection with a cooking area." Petitioner argued this phrase fails to inform a POSITA with reasonable certainty about the scope of the invention, as required under 35 U.S.C. §112.
    • Key Aspects: The petition contended it is unclear whether "operative connection" requires a physical connection, a logical connection, or merely that the sensor operates in response to conditions within the area. While the specification shows circuit diagrams with clear electrical connections, it does not define what constitutes an "operative connection with a cooking area," rendering the claim boundary ambiguous.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, primarily substituting Smith (Patent 4,496,817) or Butt (Patent 8,446,048) for ISDU. Both Smith and Butt disclose smoke/gas sensors for shutting down cooking appliances, and Petitioner argued they provided similar motivations to combine with Emma. Another set of grounds combined these references with the general knowledge of a POSITA regarding USB ports as an alternative to relying on Quezada.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Level of smoke" / "Amount of smoke": Petitioner noted that in related litigation, the Patent Owner interpreted these terms as merely requiring the detection of any smoke, not a specific quantity or threshold. Petitioner argued that even under this broad construction, which it does not adopt, the claims are invalid over the prior art. Petitioner also reserved the right to argue this term is indefinite.

5. Key Technical Contentions

  • Priority Date Challenge: A central contention is that the ’745 patent is not entitled to the 2008 filing date of its parent, the Emma application. Petitioner argued that because the core smoke sensor and USB port features were new matter added in a later application, the priority chain was broken. Therefore, Emma itself qualifies as prior art against the challenged claims, which have an effective priority date no earlier than April 25, 2014.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that review is particularly warranted because the Patent Owner failed to disclose the most critical prior art—including its own parent application (Emma), ISDU, and the related litigation—to the Examiner during prosecution of the ’745 patent. This failure deprived the Examiner of the opportunity to consider the most relevant references.

7. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of a Post Grant Review and the cancellation of claims 1, 12-15, 19-20, and 22-26 as unpatentable and claims 1-28 as indefinite.