PTAB

IPR2014-00671

ARM Inc v. CoTTIngham AgenCies Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Aerial Amusement Ride
  • Brief Description: The ’103 patent discloses an aerial amusement ride where riders are carried through the air. The ride features a central column with an open framework structure, a hub that moves vertically along the column, a motor-driven cable and pulley system to lift the hub, and a rotating support structure with rider carriers suspended by links that allow them to swing outward during rotation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Walsh in view of Barnstormer (Claims 1-9, 11, 14-18, 21-33, 37-38, 40, 45-46)

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Walsh (Patent 1,023,897) and Barnstormer (a public use/brochure for an amusement ride).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Walsh and Barnstormer discloses every element of the independent claims. Walsh, a 1912 patent, was asserted to teach the fundamental components of a tower-type airplane ride, including a central column (staff), a vertically displaceable hub (sleeve), a motor and cable lift system, a rotating support structure, and suspended rider carriers (airplanes) that swing outward. The key element allegedly missing from Walsh was the claimed "open framework structure" of the column. Petitioner contended that Barnstormer, a well-known amusement ride publicly operated before the ’103 patent's priority date, explicitly taught an aerial ride with this exact open framework column structure.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Barnstormer’s open framework column with the ride mechanism of Walsh to achieve several predictable benefits. These included a reduction in weight, decreased wind resistance, lower material and manufacturing costs, and easier access to internal components for maintenance compared to Walsh's solid column design.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known type of structural support (an open framework tower) to a known type of amusement ride, which Petitioner argued was a straightforward substitution with predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Walsh, Barnstormer, and Spieldiener (Claims 10-11, 19-20)

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Walsh (Patent 1,023,897), Barnstormer (public use/brochure), and Spieldiener (Patent 4,576,373).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Walsh and Barnstormer combination by adding Spieldiener to address claims related to a second drive motor and specific rider carrier movements. Spieldiener was cited for its disclosure of an aerial amusement ride with a central, stationary motor dedicated to rotating the outrigger structure. Petitioner argued this taught the "second drive motor for rotating said hub" limitation in claim 19. For claims 10 and 11, Spieldiener's disclosure of controlling cables to create variations in flight patterns was argued to teach rotation of the rider carrier along transverse and longitudinal axes.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to replace the individual propellers on Walsh's airplanes with a central, more powerful rotation motor as taught by Spieldiener. This would provide a more robust and controllable central power source for rotating the entire support structure, a known design choice for improving efficiency and control.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Walsh, Barnstormer, and Harrap (Claims 8-13)

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Walsh (Patent 1,023,897), Barnstormer (public use/brochure), and Harrap (Patent 6,126,552).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Harrap to the base combination to address claims requiring rider-controlled movement. Harrap disclosed a powered amusement ride where the rider is provided with a control device to impart rotational motion to their carrier. Petitioner asserted this taught the limitations in claims 8-13 related to swiveling movement and a rider-operated control device that allows for variation in the ride experience.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would incorporate the rider controls taught by Harrap into the base amusement ride of Walsh and Barnstormer for the express purpose of increasing rider interactivity, control, and enjoyment. This was presented as a common objective in amusement ride design.

Ground 4: Obviousness over Walsh, Barnstormer, and Gnezdilov (Claims 34-36, 39, 41-44, 46)

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Walsh (Patent 1,023,897), Barnstormer (public use/brochure), and Gnezdilov (Patent 6,592,463).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Gnezdilov to address claims related to specific column and guide structures. Gnezdilov disclosed a tower drop ride with features such as elongated column members having faceted cross-sections and adjacent faces, as well as a guiding unit with wheel pairs oriented at an angle to prevent rotation of the non-rotating base as it moves vertically. This was mapped to limitations concerning the column’s cross-section, anti-rotation members, and guided rolling movement using rollers.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would integrate the advanced vertical motion and anti-rotation guide systems from Gnezdilov into the Walsh/Barnstormer ride. The motivation was to improve the stability and smoothness of the ride, control rotation, and reduce friction during the hub's vertical travel along the column.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-46 of the ’103 patent as unpatentable.