`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 39
`
`
` Date: January 11, 2024
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC,
`SHARKNINJA MANAGEMENT LLC, and
`SHARKNINJA SALES COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BISSELL INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-01176
`Patent 11,096,541 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01176
`Patent 11,096,541 B2
`
`
`BISSELL Inc. (“Bissell”) is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 11,096,541
`B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’541 patent”). SharkNinja Operating LLC, SharkNinja
`Management LLC, and SharkNinja Sales Company (collectively,
`“SharkNinja”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1–20
`of the ’541 patent. Paper 1 (“Pet.”). We instituted inter partes review of all
`the claims as challenged in the Petition. Paper 12. Bissell filed a response
`(Paper 14, “PO Resp.”), SharkNinja filed a reply (Paper 22, “Pet. Reply”),
`and Bissell followed with a sur-reply (Paper 23, “PO Sur-Reply”). We held
`an oral hearing on October 31, 2023, a transcript of which is in the record.
`Paper 38 (“Hrg. Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). For the reasons below,
`we determine that SharkNinja demonstrates by a preponderance of the
`evidence that challenged claims 1–20 are unpatentable as anticipated under
`35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`In addition to the instant Petition, SharkNinja also filed petitions
`challenging two related Bissell patents, namely, U.S. Patents 10,925,455 B2
`(IPR2022-01175) and 11,096,542 B2 (IPR2022-01177). See Pet. vii.
`The ’541 patent is also the subject of an infringement action in
`BISSELL Inc. v. Tineco Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., No. 1:22-cv-00150
`(D. Del.), filed May 20, 2022. See Paper 4, 2. More notably, the ’541 patent
`is the subject of International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-
`1304, filed by Bissell against Tineco (“the related ITC proceeding”), which
`resulted in issuance of an “Initial Determination,” by Chief Administrative
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01176
`Patent 11,096,541 B2
`
`Law Judge (“ALJ”) Clark S. Cheney. See Ex. 2007 (“Initial Determination,”
`dated Mar. 23, 2023 (public version)). There, the ALJ found that “Tineco
`did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that claims 1 and 13 of the
`’541 patent are invalid under § 102 or § 103.” Id. at 154 (emphasis added).
`B. The ’541 Patent
`The ’541 patent is directed to a multi-surface vacuum cleaning
`apparatus that includes a suction nozzle assembly provided on the base in
`fluid communication with a suction source. Ex. 1001, 1:47–53. Bissell’s
`annotated Figure 14 of the ’541 patent, reproduced below, depicts the
`various components of the vacuum cleaning apparatus. See PO Resp. 18.
`
`
`
`As shown above, the vacuum cleaning apparatus comprises a suction
`nozzle assembly, a base, and an agitator. The suction nozzle assembly
`includes, for example, a nozzle housing, nozzle cover, fluid delivery
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01176
`Patent 11,096,541 B2
`
`channels, fluid dispensers, spray tips, a nozzle cover, and wipers. Id. at
`8:14–36. Bissell’s annotated Figure 8 of the ’541 patent, reproduced below,
`depicts the exemplary parts of the suction nozzle assembly. See Pet.
`Reply 12 (reproducing Bissell’s annotated Fig. 8 from PO Prelim. Resp. 7).
`
`
`
`As shown above, annotated Figure 8 is an exploded view of the
`suction nozzle assembly (highlighted), as well as the base and agitator of the
`cleaning apparatus. According to the ’541 patent, the suction nozzle
`assembly enhances cleaning in two ways. First, the suction nozzle assembly
`draws “soiled cleaning fluid and dirt” into the apparatus for simultaneous
`disposal. Id. at 14:64–15:1. The dual removal of fluid and dirt by the
`suction nozzle assembly works to “prevent streaking on the surface as well
`as to prevent dry debris scatter while agitator is activated.” Id. at 2:54–64.
`Second, the suction nozzle assembly enhances fluid distribution by
`providing fluid delivery channels 40 with spray tips 554 mounted
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01176
`Patent 11,096,541 B2
`
`horizontally along the suction nozzle assembly 580 “in order to wet the
`entire length of the brushroll 546.” Id. at 11:45–58.
`C. The Asserted Challenges
`Claims Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §
`1–20
`102
`1–20
`103
`1–20
`103
`
`Basis
`Beskow1
`Beskow
`Beskow, Li2
`
`In further support of these challenges, SharkNinja submits the
`
`declaration of Richard Figliola, Ph.D. See Ex. 1003. Bissell responds with
`the declaration of Craig R. Forest, Ph.D. See Ex. 2001.
`D. The Challenged Claims
`Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and is reproduced below (with
`emphasis added to identify the limitations disputed by Bissell):
`1. A surface cleaning apparatus, comprising:
`
`a housing including an upright handle assembly and a base
`operably coupled to the upright handle assembly;
`
`an agitator mounted within the base;
`
`a suction source;
`
`a suction nozzle assembly provided on the base and
`defining a suction nozzle in fluid communication with the suction
`source;
`
`a fluid delivery system provided on the housing and
`comprising:
`a fluid supply chamber adapted to hold a supply of
`
`liquid;
`
`a fluid dispenser provided on the base in fluid
`communication with the fluid supply chamber; and
`
`a fluid delivery pathway between the fluid supply
`chamber and the fluid dispenser; and
`
`
`1 US 7,979,952 B2, iss. July 19, 2011 (Ex. 1004, “Beskow”).
`2 US 10,136,781 B2, iss. Nov. 27, 2018 (Ex. 1005, “Li”).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01176
`Patent 11,096,541 B2
`
`
`a dual wiper configuration provided with the base and
`
`comprising a first wiper adapted to contact the agitator and a
`second wiper at least selectively adapted to contact a surface to
`be cleaned.
`
`Ex. 1001, 16:14–33 (emphases added).
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`SharkNinja submits that one skilled in the art would have had “a
`Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering (or an equivalent discipline)
`or equivalent work experience, and at least one year’s worth of experience in
`research, design and/or development related to vacuum cleaners (or other
`comparable industrial design).” Pet. 14. Bissell does not dispute
`SharkNinja’s proposed definition of the level of skill in the art, and we see
`no reason to question it. Accordingly, we adopt the level of skill in the art as
`defined by SharkNinja.
`B. Claim Construction
`
`We apply the claim construction standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). That is, “the
`words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning’
`. . . that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1312–13; see also 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b). Here, SharkNinja maintains that “no construction of any claim
`term is necessary” because the challenged claims are unpatentable “under
`any reasonable construction.” Pet. 4–5.
`Bissell, in turn, argues that the claim limitation “a suction nozzle
`assembly provided on the base” should be construed to mean that the suction
`nozzle assembly is “positioned on” the base and that the suction nozzle
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01176
`Patent 11,096,541 B2
`
`assembly and base, as claimed, “cannot be the same component.” PO Resp.
`17–18; see also Hrg. Tr. 29:9–17 (Bissell’s counsel explaining that the
`ordinary meaning of “provided on” is “positioned on”). In support, Bissell
`points to the specification of the ’541 patent, arguing that it “consistently
`depicts the claimed ‘suction nozzle assembly’ as an assembly that is distinct
`from, and mounted ‘on’ the claimed ‘base.’” Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 1001,
`10:52–58, Fig. 14). According to Bissell, “[t]here is no disclosure in the
`’541 patent in which the claimed ‘base’ is disclosed as part of the ‘suction
`nozzle assembly.’” Id. at 19 (emphasis added).
`
`We disagree with Bissell that, as claimed, the suction nozzle assembly
`must be a separate and distinct component from the base. Although we
`agree that “provided on the base” may be construed to mean that the suction
`nozzle assembly is a separate and distinct component positioned on, or
`attached to, the base, we also conclude that “provided on the base” may be
`construed more broadly to mean that the suction nozzle assembly is part of
`the base or included in the base. That broader meaning comports with the
`specification of the ’541 patent and the plain and ordinary meaning of the
`term “provided on.”
`Specifically, the specification of the ’541 patent explains that “[t]he
`base 14 includes a foot assembly 500,” and, in turn, “[f]oot assembly 500
`includes a removable suction nozzle assembly 580.” Ex. 1001, 4:22–23,
`5:47–48 (emphases added). Figures 1 and 8 of the ’541 patent, reproduced
`below (with our annotations), depict just such an arrangement, with Figure 1
`showing foot assembly 500 as part of base 14 (as opposed to handle 12), and
`Figure 8 showing suction nozzle assembly 580 as part of the overall
`structure of foot assembly 500 that, in turn, is part of base 14.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01176
`Patent 11,096,541 B2
`
`
`FIG. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`From those disclosures, it follows that if suction nozzle assembly 580
`is part of foot assembly 500, and foot assembly 500 is part of base 14, then
`suction nozzle assembly 580 must also be part of base 14. Indeed, Bissell’s
`own expert agrees: “If the base 14 includes a foot assembly 500 and then
`the foot assembly includes something, then that would in turn be part of the
`base. That’s the plain and ordinary meaning of that.” Ex. 1012, 49:5–9
`(emphasis added). Moreover, Bissell’s expert agrees that “[w]hen the
`suction nozzle assembly is provided on the base, it is included in the base.”
`Ex. 1012, 45:1–3. Indisputably, the term “include” means “to take in or
`comprise as part of a whole” or “to contain between or within.”3 Indeed,
`
`
`3 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed. (2000), at 587 (Ex.
`3001).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01176
`Patent 11,096,541 B2
`
`consistent with that plain and ordinary meaning, the specification of the ’541
`patent discloses that, as shown in Figures 8 and 11, upper cover 542 of foot
`assembly 500 is “configured to releasably receive the suction nozzle
`assembly 580.” Id. at 7:65–8:13; see also id. at 10:52–54 (“A latch
`mechanism 587 is provided at the rearward portion of suction nozzle
`assembly 580 and is configured to be received in the upper cover 542
`(FIG. 8).”). That disclosure, in our view, means that suction nozzle
`assembly is not only positioned on foot assembly 500, but it is also included
`in foot assembly 500 via the suction nozzle assembly’s attachment to upper
`cover 542, which indisputably is part of base 14. Id. at 4:22–23.
`Thus, consistent with the specification and the plain and ordinary
`meaning of “provided on,” we construe the claim limitation “a suction
`nozzle assembly provided on the base” to encompass not only the suction
`nozzle assembly being “positioned on the base,” as Bissell argues, but also
`being “part of the base” or “included in the base,” as SharkNinja contends
`and Bissell’s expert agrees.4
`We are not persuaded by Bissell’s reliance on Becton, Dickinson &
`Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010),
`HTC Corp. v. Cellular Comms. Equipment, LLC, 701 Fed. Appx. 978 (Fed.
`Cir. 2017), and Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22
`F.4th 1369, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2022), to argue that the suction nozzle assembly
`must be “separate and distinct” from the base because those elements are
`
`
`4 We note that the claim language further supports this construction by
`defining that claim 1’s recitation of “a fluid dispenser provided on the base”
`also encompasses the fluid dispenser being “in the base,” as recited by
`dependent claim 6. Compare Ex. 1001, 16:26, with id. at 16:49–51.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01176
`Patent 11,096,541 B2
`
`listed separately in the claim. PO Resp. 15–16; see also Hrg. Tr. 27:1–24
`(discussing same). Although those cases hold that separately-listed claim
`elements may give rise to a presumption that those elements are separate and
`distinct, they also recognize that the presumption may be overcome where
`the specification indicates that the elements can be the same structure. See
`Becton, Dickinson, 616 F.3d at 1254 (“[T]he only elements disclosed in the
`specification as ‘spring means’ for urging the guard forward are separate
`structures from the hinged arm and its hinges.” (emphasis added)); HTC, 701
`Fed. Appx. at 982 (“The specification nowhere gives an example of a single
`structure performing both functions.”); Kyocera, 22 F.4th at 1382 (“Nor is
`there any language in the written description that overcomes the
`presumption.”).
`Indeed, in Becton, Dickinson, the claimed “spring means” and “hinged
`arm” were considered separate structural components because “nothing in
`the specification” indicated otherwise. Becton, Dickinson, 616 F.3d at
`1254–55. That is clearly not the case here. As discussed above, the
`specification of the ’541 patent clearly contemplates that the suction nozzle
`assembly is part of the base. Moreover, in the related ITC proceeding
`involving the same patent and the same counsel, Bissell argued for just such
`a construction, as summarized by the presiding judge—
`BISSELL, on the other hand, presented expert testimony that
`“the plain and ordinary meaning of [suction nozzle assembly]
`and base does not require that two claimed elements comprise
`physically-separate components in a product.” CIB at 14
`(citing Tr. (Singhose) at 154:11–20). In BISSELL’s view, the
`“patents’ specification contemplates just such an embodiment.”
`Id. at 14; see also id. at 6–9. BISSELL thus maintains that the
`alleged suction nozzle assembly can simultaneously be a part of
`the base and be provided on the base.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01176
`Patent 11,096,541 B2
`
`Ex. 2007, 40 (emphases added). Thus, we fail to see how either Becton
`Dickinson and its progeny mandate disregarding the words of the
`specification and/or the admissions of Bissell (from its expert in this
`proceeding and its counsel in the related ITC proceeding).5
`C. Anticipation by Beskow
`1. Claim 1
`We begin with SharkNinja’s challenge that claim 1 is unpatentable as
`anticipated by Beskow. See Pet. 14–35. In challenging claim 1, SharkNinja
`submits a detailed mapping, supported by expert testimony, of how Beskow
`satisfies each of the recited claim elements. See id. at 20–36 (citing Ex.
`1003 ¶¶ 68–96).
`Bissell responds by disputing SharkNinja’s showing of how Beskow
`discloses three claim elements: “a suction nozzle assembly provided on the
`base and defining a suction nozzle,” “a fluid dispenser provided on the
`base,” and “an agitator mounted within the base.” See PO Resp. 6–26; PO
`Sur-Reply 3–5, 18–21. Bissell does not dispute SharkNinja’s showing as to
`the remaining elements of claim 1, including the claimed “dual wiper
`
`
`5 Nowhere do we discern that the ALJ in the related ITC proceeding
`analyzed the relevant disclosures of the ’541 patent that we discuss here
`before concluding that Kyocera and Becton Dickinson support a construction
`of “provided on the base” that requires the suction nozzle assembly be
`“separate and distinct” from the base. See Ex. 2007, 40–42. Instead, the
`ALJ focused on the specification’s disclosure that “suction nozzle assembly
`580” and “foot conduit” can be “molded,” without analyzing what we
`believe to be the more pertinent disclosures stating that the base includes the
`foot assembly, which, in turn, includes the suction nozzle assembly, as we
`discuss above. As such, we consider the ALJ’s analysis in this regard to be
`incomplete.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01176
`Patent 11,096,541 B2
`
`configuration.” See id. Thus, our analysis focuses on whether Beskow
`discloses the claim elements in dispute.
`a. “a suction nozzle assembly provided on the base”
`To meet the claimed “suction nozzle assembly,” SharkNinja points to
`Beskow’s disclosure of “a base (cleaning head 102) having a suction nozzle
`assembly with suction nozzles (debris inlet 724 and/or fluid inlet 726) in
`fluid communication with the suction source (vacuum source 108).” 6
`Pet. 25. SharkNinja cites Beskow’s Figures 7A and 14B, reproduced below
`(with our annotations), to assert that “when tray 730 (made of debris inlet
`724 and fluid inlet 726) is assembled with cleaning head 102, along with
`agitator 110 and fluid distributor 722,” collectively these components “form
`an assembly, defining a suction pathway, that is ‘provided on’ the base.”
`Pet. Reply 4–5 (citing Pet. 25–26, 49–50; Ex. 1003 ¶ 77).
`
`
`6 Beskow discloses that fluid inlet 726 may be formed as “an enclosed
`passageway,” as compared to the open-top passageway depicted in
`Figures 7A and 14B. Ex. 1004, 20:34–35.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01176
`Patent 11,096,541 B2
`
`
`
`In further support, SharkNinja’s expert testifies that “debris inlet 724
`and fluid inlet 726 comprise air passages through the cleaning head 102 that
`lead from the area adjacent the agitator 110 to a cleaning head outlet
`1408,” and that one skilled in the art would have understood that “[t]he
`nozzles formed by the debris inlet and the fluid inlet are part of the ‘suction
`nozzle assembly’ as claimed.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 77 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 7A,
`14A, 14B) (emphases added).
`Bissell advances several related arguments in disputing Beskow’s
`disclosure of “a suction nozzle assembly provided on the base,” as claimed.
`See PO Resp. 6–28. All of its arguments, however, rely on an overly narrow
`and improper interpretation of the claims. For instance, Bissell points to
`SharkNinja’s mapping of Beskow’s cleaning head 102 to both the claimed
`“base” and the claimed “suction nozzle assembly,” and argues that Beskow’s
`cleaning head 102 cannot be part of the suction nozzle assembly that is
`“provided on the base,” as claimed, because “a component cannot be
`considered ‘provided on’ itself.” See id. at 17–18. According to Bissell,
`“the claim language—that the suction nozzle assembly be ‘provided on’ the
`base, necessitates that the ‘suction nozzle assembly’ and ‘base’ be two
`separate and distinct components (i.e., because one has to be provided ‘on’
`the other).” Id.; see also id. at 17 (“the claims do not allow the same
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01176
`Patent 11,096,541 B2
`
`components to be used to show both the ‘suction nozzle assembly’ as well as
`the claimed ‘base,’ ‘agitator’ and ‘fluid dispenser’”). With that premise in
`mind, Bissell contends that “[SharkNinja’s] mapping is counter-logical
`because it would require that [SharkNinja’s] defined ‘suction nozzle
`assembly’ of Beskow be provided on itself.” Id. at 7–8; see also id. at 17–18
`(essentially same).
`We find unpersuasive Bissell’s assertion that Beskow’s suction nozzle
`assembly is not “provided on the base,” as claimed. See PO Resp. 7–10, 17–
`21. That is because Bissell’s assertion that the suction nozzle assembly, as
`claimed, must be a physically separate component from the base relies on an
`improper claim construction. As discussed above, we construe “a suction
`nozzle assembly provided on the base” to encompass not only a suction
`nozzle assembly that is “positioned on” the base, as Bissell asserts, but also
`one that it is “part of” the base or “included in” the base.” To that end,
`Beskow discloses that “debris and fluid inlets 724, 726 may be formed
`entirely or partially as a removable inlet tray 730” and “may be separately
`removable from the cleaning head 102, integral to or not removable from the
`cleaning head 102.” Ex. 1004, 20:6–7, 29–32. That the debris and fluid
`inlet portions of Beskow’s suction nozzle assembly are removably attached
`to Beskow’s cleaning head 102 (i.e., the claimed “base”) necessarily means
`they are “positioned on” and “included in” the base under the proper
`construction of “provided on the base.” Indeed, Beskow’s disclosure is no
`different than the preferred embodiment of the ’541 patent, where suction
`nozzle assembly 580 “is configured to be received in the upper cover 542,”
`which indisputably is part of “base 14.” Ex. 1001, 10:52–54, Fig. 8
`(emphasis added); see also id. at 8:12–13 (“Upper cover 542 can be
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01176
`Patent 11,096,541 B2
`
`configured to releasably receive the suction nozzle assembly 580.”). Thus,
`we find that Beskow satisfies the claim limitation of “a suction nozzle
`assembly provided on the base.”
`b. “a suction nozzle assembly . . . defining a suction nozzle”
`Bissell also faults SharkNinja for relying on Beskow’s fluid
`distributor 722 to satisfy part of the claimed “suction nozzle assembly.” See
`PO Resp. 24–25. According to Bissell, “Beskow’s fluid distributor 722 has
`nothing to do with suction, let alone define a suction nozzle as the claims
`require” and, instead, only “distributes fluid,” which “is the opposite of
`suction.” Id.
`We do not find this argument persuasive for the simple reason that
`claim 1 does not require that the suction nozzle assembly as a whole
`“defin[e] a suction nozzle” to the exclusion of other parts of the assembly.
`In other words, as claimed, only some aspect of the suction nozzle assembly
`must define a suction nozzle, not necessarily every aspect of the assembly.
`Indeed, SharkNinja’s inclusion of Beskow’s fluid distributor as part of the
`suction nozzle assembly is no different than the manner in which the
`claimed “fluid dispenser” is depicted and described in the ’541 patent.
`Specifically, Figure 8 of the ’541 patent, reproduced below (with our
`annotations), shows fluid dispenser 554 as part of suction nozzle assembly
`580. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 8.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01176
`Patent 11,096,541 B2
`
`
`
`Likewise, the accompanying description in the ’541 patent indicates
`that fluid dispenser 554 is an integral part of suction nozzle assembly 580,
`despite having a fluid delivery function as opposed to a suction function.
`Suction nozzle assembly 580 can be configured to include
`at least one inlet nozzle for recovering fluid and debris from the
`surface to be cleaned and at least one outlet for delivering fluid
`to the surface to be cleaned. In one example, suction nozzle
`assembly 580 can include a nozzle housing 551 and a nozzle
`cover 552 which mate to form a pair of fluid delivery channels
`40 therebetween that are each fluidly connected to a spray
`connector 528 at one terminal end. At the opposite, or second
`terminal, end of each fluid delivery channel 40, a fluid
`dispenser 554 is configured with at least one outlet to deliver
`fluid to the surface to be cleaned.
`
`Id. at 8:14–24 (emphases added).
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01176
`Patent 11,096,541 B2
`
`
`Just as the ’541 patent depicts and describes fluid dispenser 554
`as part of suction nozzle assembly 580, so too does Beskow. As
`explained above, when Beskow’s tray 730 (formed by debris inlet 724
`and fluid inlet 726) is assembled along with cleaning head 102,
`agitator 110, and fluid distributor 722, the complete assembly defines
`“a suction nozzle in fluid communication with a suction source,” as
`claimed. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77, 122, 124. Thus, we reject the notion
`that, just because Beskow’s fluid distributor 722 functions to
`distribute fluid, it cannot be relied on to satisfy, in part, the claimed
`“suction nozzle assembly.”
`c. “a fluid dispenser provided on the base”
`Bissell disputes SharkNinja’s showing that Beskow discloses “a fluid
`dispenser provided on the base,” as also recited in claim 1. Similar to its
`argument for the claimed “suction nozzle assembly,” Bissell argues that “the
`claims require a ‘fluid dispenser’ that is distinct from and positioned on the
`claimed ‘base,’” whereas “Beskow’s fluid distributor 722 is mounted on
`Beskow’s cleaning head 102.” PO Resp. 21–22. So, according to Bissell,
`because SharkNinja contends that “Beskow’s cleaning head 102 is part of
`the claimed ‘suction nozzle assembly,” then Beskow’s fluid distributor 722
`cannot also be “provided on the base,” as required by claim 1. Id. at 22–23.
`We disagree. Indisputably, Beskow discloses that fluid
`distributor 722 is mounted on agitator chamber 720 of cleaning head
`102, which SharkNinja maps to the claimed “base.” See Pet. 28
`(citing Ex. 1004, 16:8–14, 16:65–17:2, Fig. 7A). That SharkNinja
`also relies on agitator chamber 720 as forming a part of the claimed
`“suction nozzle assembly” does not preclude SharkNinja from relying
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01176
`Patent 11,096,541 B2
`
`on that same part of cleaning head 102 to meet the claimed “base” on
`which fluid distributor 722 is mounted. In other words, nothing in the
`claim language or the specification of the ’541 patent precludes one
`component (Beskow’s base 102) from serving two purposes (a surface
`for mounting the fluid dispenser and a portion of the suction nozzle
`assembly for helping collect debris). As such, we find that Beskow’s
`fluid distributor 722 being mounted on cleaning head 102 clearly
`satisfies the claim limitation of “a fluid dispenser provided on the
`base.”
`d. “an agitator mounted within the base”
`Bissell also faults SharkNinja for relying on Beskow’s agitator 110 to
`meet both the claimed “agitator mounted within the base,” and, in part, the
`claimed “suction nozzle assembly provided on the base.” PO Resp. 25.
`According to Bissell, “[t]his mapping is impermissible because the same
`component cannot be both the agitator mounted within the base and the
`suction nozzle assembly provided on the base.” Id. We disagree.
`Bissell’s argument with respect to the agitator is similar to Bissell’s
`previously-rejected argument that Beskow’s cleaning head 102 cannot
`satisfy both the claimed “base” and the claimed “suction nozzle assembly.”
`Indisputably, Beskow meets the claim limitation of “an agitator mounted
`within the base” by expressly disclosing that “agitator 110 may be mounted
`in a concave portion of the cleaning head 102 that forms an agitator chamber
`720.” Ex. 1004, 16:8–14, Figs. 1A, 7A. The dispute, according to Bissell,
`arises from SharkNinja’s additional mapping of Beskow’s agitator 110 to the
`claimed “suction nozzle assembly.” See Pet. 25–26. But nothing in the
`claim language or the specification of the ’541 patent precludes one claimed
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01176
`Patent 11,096,541 B2
`
`component (the agitator) from also constituting part of another claimed
`component (the suction nozzle assembly). In fact, the specification of the
`’541 patent explains that the “agitator can be provided adjacent to the
`suction nozzle for agitating the surface to be cleaned so that the debris is
`more easily ingested into the suction nozzle.” Ex. 1001, 3:57–60 (emphasis
`added). Thus, the specification contemplates that the agitator helps the
`suction nozzle perform its suction function, confirming that it can be
`“mounted within the base” while also constituting part of the suction nozzle
`assembly “provided on the base,” as claim 1 requires. As such, we reject
`Bissell’s attempt to hold Beskow’s agitator to a different standard. Instead,
`we find that Beskow’s disclosure of mounting agitator 110 within agitator
`chamber 720 of cleaning head 102 fully satisfies the claim limitation of “an
`agitator mounted within the base.”
`e. Conclusion
`As discussed above, SharkNinja persuasively shows that Beskow
`teaches or suggests the disputed elements of claim 1. Bissell does not
`otherwise dispute SharkNinja’s showing of how Beskow teaches the other
`elements of claim 1, including the “dual wiper” element. See PO Resp. 17,
`21, 25 (identifying three claim elements in dispute). As such, we need not
`expressly address the sufficiency of SharkNinja’s showing as to any
`undisputed claim elements. See In re NuVasive, Inc., 841 F.3d 966, 974
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The Board, having found the only disputed limitations
`together in one reference, was not required to address undisputed matters.”);
`see also Paper 13 at 8 (warning that “any arguments not raised in the
`response may be deemed waived”). Nonetheless, because SharkNinja bears
`the burden of persuasion, we have reviewed the Petition and find that it fully
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01176
`Patent 11,096,541 B2
`
`supports SharkNinja’s showing that Beskow teaches the undisputed claim
`elements arranged as in the claim. See Pet. 20–36. Thus, we conclude that
`SharkNinja demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of
`the ’541 patent is unpatentable as anticipated by Beskow.
`2. Dependent Claims 11–13
`Bissell argues that, to the extent SharkNinja relies “solely” on
`Beskow’s debris inlet 724 and fluid inlet 726 to meet the claimed “suction
`nozzle assembly,” then the Petition fails to demonstrate the unpatentability
`of dependent claims 11–13. PO Resp. 28. But, as explained above, that is
`not the case. Instead, SharkNinja relies collectively on Beskow’s debris inlet
`724, fluid inlet 726, agitator chamber 720 of cleaning head 102, agitator 110,
`and fluid distributor 722 as constituting the suction nozzle assembly. See
`Pet. 25; Pet. Reply 4–5; see also PO Resp. 6–9 (acknowledging
`SharkNinja’s reliance on this assembly of components for the claimed
`“suction nozzle assembly”). Thus, it is the assembly of those components
`that discloses the elements of dependent claims 11–13.
`For instance, claim 11 requires that “the suction nozzle assembly
`defines a chamber at least partially housing the agitator.” Beskow expressly
`discloses that “agitator 110 may be mounted in a concave portion of the
`cleaning head 102 [i.e., the claimed “base”] that forms an agitator chamber
`720.” Ex. 1004, 16:8–10 (emphasis added). Moreover, Beskow explains
`that “agitator chamber 720 also may include other devices, such as a fluid
`distributor 722, a debris inlet 724, and a fluid inlet 726.” Id. at 16:12–14.
`As previously explained, Beskow’s suction nozzle assembly indisputably
`includes removable inlet tray 730, as formed by debris and fluid inlets 724
`and 726. Beskow’s Figures 7A and 14B, reproduced below (with our
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01176
`Patent 11,096,541 B2
`
`annotations), depict how the suction nozzle assembly defines agitator
`chamber 720.
`
`
`
`
`As shown, removable inlet tray 730 is provided with concave surface
`(annotated in red) for defining the lower portion of agitator chamber 720 and
`cleaning head 102 and fluid distributor 722 are likewise provided with a
`concave surface (annotated in blue) for defining the upper portion of agitator
`chamber 720. Id., Figs. 7A, 14B; see also id., Fig. 12 (depicting fluid
`distributor 722 with concave surface 1202). Thus, Beskow’s suction nozzle
`assembly, i.e., debris inlet 724, fluid inlet 726, cleaning head 102, and fluid
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01176
`Patent 11,096,541 B2
`
`distributor 722, define a “chamber at least partially housing the agitator,” as
`required by dependent claim 11.
`Claim 12 requires “at least one fluid delivery channel forming a
`portion of the fluid delivery pathway, the at least one fluid delivery channel
`provided on the suction nozzle assembly.” As previously explained,
`Beskow’s fluid distributor 722 is part of the suction nozzle assembly, and, as
`Beskow discloses, “fluid distributor 722 may comprise a removable
`manifold having an internal channel 1202 that extends partially or entirely
`across the width of the agitator 110.” Ex. 1004, 16:40–43 (emphasis added);
`Fig. 12; see also Pet. 51. Thus, we are persuaded that Beskow discloses “at
`least one fluid delivery channel provided on the suction nozzle assembly,” as
`required by claim 12.
`Claim 13 requires that “at least a portion of the at least one fluid
`delivery channel is an integrated fluid delivery channel forming a portion of
`the fluid delivery pathway.” For meeting this claim element, SharkNinja
`again points to Beskow’s disclosure that fluid distributor 722 “may comprise
`a removable manifold having an internal channel 1202 [i.e., integrated] that
`extends partially or entirely across the width of the agitator 110.” Ex. 1004,
`16:40–45 (emphasis added). Beskow also te