PTAB

IPR2015-00899

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 discloses an apparatus for detecting and controlling the height of an agricultural combine’s header above the soil. The system uses a flexible sensor arm mounted to a forward portion of the header to detect ground contours, which sends signals to a controller that adjusts the header’s height.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lofquist, Chmielewski, Cleveland, and/or Dougherty - Claims 1-7, 10, 12-20, 23, 25-28, and 34 are obvious over Lofquist in view of Chmielewski, Cleveland, and optionally Dougherty.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lofquist (Patent 5,761,893), Chmielewski (Patent 5,535,577), Cleveland (Patent 3,611,286), and Dougherty (Patent 4,211,057).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the primary references collectively disclose all limitations of the challenged claims. Lofquist taught a non-cut crop header made of plastic (argued to be interchangeable with the claimed polyurethane) with a mounting bracket at its forward end. Chmielewski taught a complete automated header height control system, including potentiometers (the “angular deflection sensing means”) and a hydraulic controller (the “control means”). Cleveland was asserted to teach a more robust, flexible, pre-loaded sensor arm comprising a helical spring and rigid members, which would be an obvious replacement for Chmielewski’s simpler ground contact sensors. Cleveland also disclosed biasing means (a spring), stop means (a camming slot), and a spherical soil-engaging member. Dougherty was cited as an alternative teaching of a torsion spring for the biasing means.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Lofquist’s header with Chmielewski’s automated control system to improve upon known manual systems, a predictable integration of known technologies. A POSITA would have been further motivated to substitute Chmielewski’s sensor with Cleveland’s more flexible and durable sensor arm to better navigate uneven terrain and reduce breakage. This modification was presented as a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. Finally, attaching the sensor system using Lofquist’s pre-existing mounting hardware was argued to be obvious to avoid drilling new holes that could compromise the structural integrity of the polyurethane header housing.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that combining these known mechanical components from analogous arts (agricultural equipment) would have presented no technical hurdles and would have predictably resulted in a functional header height control system performing as expected.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Lofquist, Chmielewski, Cleveland, and Agness - Claims 8-9, 21-22, and 29-33 are obvious over the combination of Ground 1, further in view of Agness.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lofquist (Patent 5,761,893), Chmielewski (Patent 5,535,577), Cleveland (Patent 3,611,286), and Agness (Patent 3,851,451).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1, adding Agness to teach the "guard means" limitations recited in claims 8, 9, 21, 22, and 29-33. Petitioner argued that Agness disclosed a switch mounting clip with a curved envelope designed to protect its internal reed switches from dust, moisture, and debris. This protective envelope, which Petitioner also described as a "curved bar," was alleged to meet the claimed "guard means for shielding said angular deflection sensing means."
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation for this combination was based on addressing the known problem of protecting sensitive electronic components in the harsh, debris-filled environment of agricultural harvesting. A POSITA would have recognized the need to shield the rotation sensor of the combined Chmielewski/Cleveland system. Petitioner argued it would have been an obvious design choice to incorporate a known protective casing, such as the envelope taught by Agness, to improve the system's reliability and longevity.
    • Expectation of Success: Adding a simple protective shield to the sensor assembly was argued to be a straightforward mechanical integration that a POSITA could implement with a high expectation of success, predictably resulting in a more durable sensor.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Lofquist, Chmielewski, Cleveland, and McMurtry - Claims 11 and 24 are obvious over the combination of Ground 1, further in view of McMurtry.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lofquist (Patent 5,761,893), Chmielewski (Patent 5,535,577), Cleveland (Patent 3,611,286), and McMurtry (Patent 5,189,806).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added McMurtry to the core combination to teach the "calibration means" limitations, specifically an "adjustable mounting arrangement for rotationally displacing" the sensor. While Chmielewski disclosed a calibration process, Petitioner argued that McMurtry, which relates to a workpiece scanning device, explicitly taught an adjustable mounting for its probe head to achieve calibration. This teaching was asserted to meet the structural requirement of an adjustable mounting arrangement for calibration.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that although Chmielewski's system lacked an adjustable mount, a POSITA would have understood that implementing calibration via an adjustable mounting arrangement is a common and obvious design choice. Because the art of workpiece scanning (McMurtry) and terrain scanning (the primary combination) are analogous, a POSITA would have looked to McMurtry’s solution for improving the calibration of the header height sensor. Petitioner noted that the patent examiner had made a similar combination during the original prosecution.
    • Expectation of Success: Incorporating an adjustable mount for calibration purposes was presented as a predictable design variation that would have been well within the skill of a POSITA, leading to the expected result of a more finely-tunable sensor system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "angular deflection sensing means" (claims 1-2, 8-9, etc.): Petitioner argued this is a means-plus-function term where the function is sensing angular deflection. The corresponding structure disclosed in the ’395 patent specification is a rotation sensor. Therefore, Petitioner contended the term should be construed as a rotation sensor and its equivalents.
  • "guard means" (claims 8-9, 21-22, etc.): Petitioner asserted this is a means-plus-function term for shielding or protecting the sensor components from debris. The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification is a curved guard plate. Petitioner argued the term should be construed to cover any structure that performs this protective function, such as the switch mounting clip taught by Agness.

5. Relief Requested

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