/>iIn its Final Written Decision, the Board determined that Petitioner showed by a preponderance of the evidence that all of the challenged claims of the ’598 patent are unpatentable. The ’598 patent relates to active anti-tip systems for powered vehicles, such as powered wheelchairs.
The Board began with a short discussion of claim construction. It determined that none of the terms needed express construction. Petitioner had argued that the term “pivotably mounted to the frame” to mean “mounted to the frame such that the arm is capable of rotating about a pivot axis.” Patent Owner contended that Petitioner’s construction “is vague because, when read in context of the rest of the claim language, it is unclear whether ‘a pivot axis’ in the construction is the recited ‘arm pivot axis’ or some different axis.” The Board did not agree that Petitioner’s proposed construction was vague, but it also did not believe that term “pivotably mounted to the frame” required any meaning other than its plain and ordinary meaning.
The Board then considered the level of ordinary skill in the art. Patent Owner argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’598 patent would have three years of experience designing, developing, and testing curb-climbing systems for power wheelchairs. Petitioner disputed the training and experience asserted by Patent Owner. The Board determined that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have had either (1) an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or an equivalent degree; or (2) at least three years of experience designing powered wheelchairs for personal mobility.
The Board then considered Petitioner’s obviousness ground of unpatentability. Patent Owner argued that Petitioner’s expert did not have qualifications to opine on the reason to combine. The Board was not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument, because it did not agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art had to have three years of experience specific to curb-climbing systems. Patent Owner also argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered moving Goertzen’s pivot below the axis-to-axis line to be a routine design choice because doing so would reduce stability. However, the Board was persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to compensate for the reduction in stability caused by lowering the pivot. Patent Owner also argued that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to Hosino to modify the teachings of Goertzen, but the Board was not persuaded.
Patent Owner also asserted secondary considerations in the form of copying and commercial success. However, the Board noted that Patent Owner failed to demonstrate that the alleged “copiers” were aware of the ’598 patent prior to developing products. The Board also noted that Patent Owner did not provide persuasive evidence that the company-wide increase in market share is attributable to the patented feature.
Thus, because the Board found that Petitioner had provided detailed explanations with expert testimony for how each claim limitation is met by Goertzen and Hoshino and that Patent Owner had not provided any persuasive argument or evidence of secondary considerations, the Board found that the claims were unpatentable.
Permobil Inc. v. Pride Mobility Products Corporation, IPR2013-00407
Paper 53: Final Written Decision
Dated: December 31, 2014
Patent 8,408,598 B2
Before: Brian J. McNamara, James B. Arpin, and Matthew R. Clements
Written by: Clements
Related Proceedings: Pride Mobility Products Corp. v. Permobil, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-01999-LDD (E.D. Pa.); Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/002,355 (parent 8,181,992 B2); Pride Mobility Products Corp. v. Permobil, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-03931 (E.D. Pa.) (parent 8,181,992 B2); Ex Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/013,376 (parent 8,181,992 B2); and IPR2013-00411 (related 8,408,343 B2)
