Jackel/Mayborn v. Admar
Full2015-00979 · US8695841B2
In plain English: The Board reviewed these claims and upheld all of them as valid.
How to read this page: start with the Case brief above, use (the small numbered links) to open the exact source page they cite, then use Reference material further down for claim-by-claim and ground-by-ground detail.
All challenged claims upheld
The Board left every instituted claim of Admar's no-spill cup patent standing - a clean sweep for the patent owner.[12][1]
The '841 patent issues to Admar April 15, 2014·Jackel and Mayborn petition against claims 1-14 March 31, 2015·Board institutes on two obviousness grounds covering claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14 October 1, 2015·Oral hearing before the Board June 30, 2016·Final written decision: all instituted claims survive September 21, 2016
- The '841 patent covers a no-spill drinking cup with a valve that keeps liquid in until it is wanted.[4]
- Three obviousness combinations were asserted; the Board instituted on two and trimmed two claims.[23][24][22][25]
- The petition broke on construction: the claimed 'spout' does not reach baby-bottle nipples, and Raymond and Mutti are baby bottles.[6][8][10]
- The written decision closed the trial with all claims intact.[12][1]
A patent owner beat a full obviousness challenge on the strength of one construed word - and kept every claim.[6][12]
- Husch Blackwell Secures Second PTAB Victory This Week
Husch Blackwell · September 22, 2016
Reference material
Claim-by-claim and ground-by-ground records underlying the brief above.
| Claim | Ground 1: §103 — Raymond US5747083, Mutti FR1191181 | Ground 2: §103 — Raymond US5747083, Mutti FR1191181, Belanger US5079013 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Not shown unpatentable[1] | — |
| 2 | Not shown unpatentable[1] | — |
| 3 | — | Not shown unpatentable[1] |
| 4 | — | Not shown unpatentable[1] |
| 5 | Not shown unpatentable[1] | — |
| 7 | Not shown unpatentable[1] | — |
| 8 | Not shown unpatentable[1] | — |
| 9 | Not shown unpatentable[1] | — |
| 10 | — | Not shown unpatentable[1] |
| 11 | — | Not shown unpatentable[1] |
| 12 | Not shown unpatentable[1] | — |
| 14 | Not shown unpatentable[1] | — |
- [1] Paper 42 at 27 (conclusion)
- Ground 1: §103Not instituted
Raymond US5747083, Mutti FR1191181
Claims 6, 13
Paper 7 at 17; ground instituted for the other 8 claims - Ground 3: §103Not instituted
Mutti FR1191181, Kano US4785978, Suffa DE19510007
Claims 1-14
Paper 7 at 20; redundant under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)