PTAB

IPR2015-00898

Deere & Co v. Gramm Richard

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Combine Header Height Control
  • Brief Description: The ’395 patent describes an apparatus for automatically controlling the height of a combine harvester's header above the ground. The system uses a flexible sensor arm that engages the soil to detect terrain changes, which in turn sends signals to a controller that adjusts the header's height.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Core Art Combination - Claims 1-7, 10, 12-20, 23, 25-28, and 34 are obvious over DPC, Chmielewski, Cleveland, the DA, and/or Dougherty.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: DPC (Deere Parts Catalog (Ex. 1005)), Chmielewski (Patent 5,535,577), Cleveland (Patent 3,611,286), the DA (Deere Advertisement (Ex. 1004)), and Dougherty (Patent 4,211,057).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the base non-cut crop header with a forward mounting bracket was disclosed by the DPC. The automated height control system, including the "angular deflection sensing means" (potentiometers) and "control means" (controller), was taught by Chmielewski. Cleveland was cited for teaching a pre-loaded, flexible sensor arm with a coiled spring, an improvement over Chmielewski's ground contact sensors. The DA was used to show that making the header housing from a plastic like polyethylene (interchangeable with the claimed polyurethane) was known. Finally, Dougherty was cited for its disclosure of a torsion spring as a "biasing means."
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the automated control system of Chmielewski with the known header from DPC to solve the well-known problem of automatically adjusting header height to prevent damage. A POSITA would have been motivated to substitute Cleveland's more flexible and durable sensor arm for Chmielewski's simple contact sensors to improve performance over uneven terrain. The combination was presented as a predictable application of known technologies to solve a known problem.
    • Expectation of Success: The petition asserted that a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involved integrating known mechanical and electronic components for their intended and well-understood functions.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Core Art plus Agness - Claims 8-9, 21-22, and 29-33 are obvious over DPC, Chmielewski, Cleveland, the DA, and Agness.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The core combination from Ground 1, plus Agness (Patent 3,851,451).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1 to address claims requiring a "guard means" for shielding the sensor from debris. Petitioner argued that Agness disclosed a protective guard in the form of a switch mounting clip with a curved envelope that encloses and protects sensor components from dust and moisture in an agricultural setting.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the sensor system from the primary combination would have recognized the need to protect the sensor components from the harsh, debris-filled environment of a harvesting field. Petitioner argued that incorporating a protective cover, as taught by Agness, was a common-sense, predictable solution to improve the reliability and longevity of the sensor system.
    • Expectation of Success: Adding a known protective element like the guard from Agness to the sensor assembly would have been a straightforward mechanical integration with a predictable outcome of shielding the sensor.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Core Art plus McMurtry - Claims 11 and 24 are obvious over DPC, Chmielewski, Cleveland, the DA, and McMurtry.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The core combination from Ground 1, plus McMurtry (Patent 5,189,806).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims requiring "calibration means" that include an "adjustable mounting arrangement." While Chmielewski taught a basic calibration process, Petitioner contended that McMurtry, from the analogous art of workpiece scanning, disclosed an adjustable mounting arrangement for precisely positioning a sensor for calibration.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to implement or improve the calibration of the Chmielewski control system would have found it obvious to incorporate an adjustable mounting mechanism. Petitioner noted that the original patent examiner had considered the combination of header height control art and workpiece scanning art to be proper. Using an adjustable mount like McMurtry’s was presented as a known design choice to achieve the predictable result of enhanced calibration accuracy.
    • Expectation of Success: Modifying a sensor mount to be adjustable for calibration purposes was argued to be a well-known technique within the skill of a POSITA, leading to a predictable improvement in the system's setup and accuracy.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner proposed constructions for several means-plus-function terms that were central to its invalidity arguments.

  • "angular deflection sensing means": Argued to be a means-plus-function term, with the corresponding structure in the ’395 patent's specification being a rotation sensor (e.g., a potentiometer) and its equivalents.
  • "control means": Argued to be a means-plus-function term, with the corresponding structure being a head controller that processes sensor signals and adjusts the hydraulic control system, and its equivalents.
  • "biasing means": Argued to be a means-plus-function term, with the corresponding structure being a coiled spring and its equivalents.
  • "guard means": Argued to be a means-plus-function term whose function is to protect the sensor from debris, with the corresponding structure being a curved guard plate and its equivalents.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-34 of the ’395 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.