PTAB

IPR2014-00313

Al Ko Kober LLC v. Lippert Components Mfg Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Retractable Room Actuation Assembly for Recreational Vehicle
  • Brief Description: The ’666 patent discloses an actuating assembly for moving a slide-out room of a recreational vehicle (RV) between extended and retracted positions. The technology centers on a rack-and-pinion drive system that includes a specific retention member designed to maintain engagement between the drive and engagement members regardless of spacing changes between the slide-out room and the RV’s main body.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kunz in view of Nebel or Bortell - Claims 1-5, 8, and 9 are obvious over Kunz in view of Nebel or Bortell.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kunz (Patent 7,229,123), Nebel (Application # 2005/0230989), and Bortell (Patent 6,783,164).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kunz disclosed every limitation of independent claim 1 except for mounting the actuating assembly on a side wall of the retractable room. Kunz taught a slide-out system for an RV using a rack-and-pinion drive, with its gear rack 52 (the "engagement member") driven by a pinion 60 (the "drive member"). Critically, Kunz disclosed a slide block 42 received in a track 48, which corresponded to the claimed "retention member." Petitioner asserted this arrangement maintains engagement between the pinion and rack even as the slide-out room moves, satisfying the core functional requirement of the claim. However, Kunz’s assembly was mounted to the bottom of the slide-out room. Petitioner contended that both Nebel and Bortell explicitly taught mounting similar rack-and-pinion actuating assemblies on the vertical side walls of an RV slide-out room. Nebel’s upper tracks 210 and Bortell’s gear racks 94 were both disclosed as being mounted on the side walls of the expansion module.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Kunz’s retention mechanism with the side-wall mounting taught by Nebel or Bortell for two primary reasons. First, locating an actuation assembly on the bottom, top, or sides of a slide-out room was a simple and finite design choice, making the modification a matter of common sense. Second, Nebel provided an explicit technical motivation, teaching that bottom-push systems (like Kunz’s) could become stuck, and that stability was improved by pushing the slide-out section from the top via a side-wall mounted assembly. This would have motivated a POSITA to relocate the Kunz system to a side wall to achieve the known benefit of increased operational stability.
    • Expectation of Success: The proposed modification was argued to be a simple 90-degree rotation of the Kunz assembly to mount it on a side wall. This involved the application of well-known techniques and the combination of predictable prior art elements, leading to a high expectation of success.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kunz in view of Nebel or Bortell and Huffman - Claims 6 and 7 are obvious over Kunz in view of Nebel or Bortell, further in view of Huffman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kunz (Patent 7,229,123), Nebel (Application # 2005/0230989), Bortell (Patent 6,783,164), and Huffman (Patent 6,948,754).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claims 6 and 7, which added the limitation of "at least one roller to support said compartment." Petitioner argued that while the primary combination of Kunz and Nebel/Bortell rendered the base claims obvious, the additional roller element was taught by Huffman. Huffman disclosed an RV slide-out assembly that used rollers 28 to support a rail member 30. The rail member in Huffman was configured as a C-channel that enclosed the rollers, which prevented the rollers (and the associated drive pinion) from moving away from the rack. This roller-and-rail system performed the same retention function as Kunz’s slide block and track mechanism.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have recognized that Kunz’s slide block/track arrangement and Huffman’s roller/C-channel system were two known and functionally equivalent mechanisms for achieving the same goal: restraining the pinion from disengaging from the rack. The motivation was to substitute one known element (Kunz’s slide block) with another known element (Huffman’s roller system) that performed the same function to achieve a predictable result. This was presented as a simple rearrangement of old elements where the combined system would perform the same functions it had been known to perform, yielding no more than what a POSITA would expect from the combination.
    • Expectation of Success: Because both Kunz's and Huffman's retention mechanisms were known in the art to solve the same problem of maintaining gear engagement, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating Huffman's roller system into the slide-out assembly derived from Kunz and Nebel/Bortell.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges by reversing the primary and secondary references (i.e., Nebel or Bortell in view of Kunz, and Nebel or Bortell in view of Kunz and Huffman), arguing that it would have been equally obvious to add Kunz's retention member to the side-mounted systems of Nebel or Bortell.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-9 of the ’666 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.