PTAB

IPR2013-00212

UKing Universe Inc v. Cheng Kang Chu

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Swivel Exerciser
  • Brief Description: The ’583 patent discloses a swivel exerciser with improved stability characteristics. The invention addresses the problem of instability in prior art designs, which the patent specification attributes to a lack of forward support for the portion of the device containing the hand grips.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 4, and 5 are obvious over Tsai in view of Ho

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tsai (Patent D626,608), Ho (Patent 8,002,685).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Tsai, the primary reference, discloses the majority of elements in independent claim 1, a position the Applicant did not dispute during prosecution. The remaining limitations—a "longitudinal member," a "head tube" secured to it, and a "foot disposed on a bottom end of the head tube"—were added to the claims during prosecution to overcome a rejection. Petitioner asserted these specific stability-enhancing elements are taught by Ho, which discloses a twisting exerciser with a longitudinal member (stem 21), a head tube (handle bar 4), and a supporting foot (foot 5). The additional limitations of dependent claim 4 (through holes and fasteners) and claim 5 (protective caps) were alleged to be fully disclosed by the Tsai design patent.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the teachings of Tsai and Ho to solve the known instability problem inherent in the Tsai design. The ’583 patent itself identifies this instability as a key problem in the art. Ho explicitly teaches that its foot members are "placed on the floor to support the base," providing a direct solution to the problem and a clear motivation for the combination.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involved incorporating a known support structure (Ho's footed head tube) into a standard exercise frame (Tsai) to achieve the predictable result of increased stability.

Ground 2: Claim 2 is obvious over Tsai in view of Ho and Splane

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tsai (Patent D626,608), Ho (Patent 8,002,685), Splane (Patent D613,351).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that claim 2 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation that the "two spaced front legs [are] located intermediate the projecting stop members on the curved rail and the rear leg." Petitioner established that Tsai discloses the projecting stop members on the curved rail, while Splane was cited to explicitly disclose the claimed positional arrangement of front legs located between stop members and a rear leg.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine Tsai and Ho for stability remains the same as in Ground 1. A POSITA would further incorporate the leg positioning taught by Splane as a known and logical design choice for arranging support structures on an exercise device. This modification would predictably enhance the stability of the base for the combined Tsai and Ho apparatus.

Ground 3: Claim 3 is obvious over Tsai, Ho, and Splane, in further view of Augustine

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tsai (Patent D626,608), Ho (Patent 8,002,685), Splane (Patent D613,351), Augustine (Patent D584,367).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that claim 3 depends from claim 2 and adds two features that were included during prosecution: the longitudinal member having "C-shaped cross sections" and a "locating screw" driven in a specific direction to secure the head tube. Petitioner argued that the Augustine design patent discloses an exercise machine with a longitudinal member that has C-shaped cross-sections and utilizes a locating screw to secure the head tube to the base frame.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, when building the exerciser from the Tsai/Ho/Splane combination, would combine it with the teachings of Augustine. Petitioner contended it would have been an obvious design choice to use Augustine's C-shaped member and locating screw, as this represents a simple, conventional, and well-known method for connecting structural components in exercise equipment. This modification was framed as a substitution of one known connection method for another to achieve a predictable result.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-5 of the ’583 patent as unpatentable.