PTAB

IPR2015-01060

Brunswick Corp v. Cobalt Boats LLC

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Retractable Step for Boat Swim Platform
Brief Description: The ’880 patent describes a retractable step for a boat's swim platform. The invention comprises a large step moveable between a stored position, typically within a recess on the boat, and a deployed position where it can be locked below the water surface for swimmers to use.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Jaramillo (Patent 5,970,905) and Curi (Patent 7,314,019).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Jaramillo, which discloses an "Automatically Retractable Telescopic and Rotatable Steps for Watercraft," teaches every limitation of independent claims 1 and 6 except for a "spring biased locking mechanism." Jaramillo allegedly discloses a base with a recess (an alcove at the rear of the boat), stationary and movable arms, and a step capable of rotating at least 180 degrees between a stored and deployed position. To supply the missing element, Petitioner contended that Curi teaches a "Retractable Step with Secure Locking Mechanism," including a torsion spring that biases a plate to lock a ladder in place.
- Motivation to Combine: The primary motivation asserted was an express teaching in Curi. Petitioner highlighted that Curi explicitly states its locking mechanism could be adapted for use with the embodiment described in Jaramillo, noting it would be desirable to lock the Jaramillo step in its deployed position.
- Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the known spring-locking mechanism of Curi with the retractable ladder of Jaramillo, as both relate to boat ladders and Curi itself suggests the combination.

Prior Art Relied Upon: McCrea (Patent 3,501,190) and Terleski (Patent 7,341,016).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that McCrea, which discloses a foldable step integrated into a truck camper bumper, teaches the core structural elements of claim 1. McCrea allegedly shows a base (the bumper) with a recess for storing a step, stationary projections ("pins"), movable arms, and a step that rotates 180 degrees between stored and deployed positions. Petitioner argued McCrea is analogous art as it addresses the same problem of providing vehicle access. The missing "spring biased locking mechanism" was allegedly supplied by Terleski, which discloses a folding watercraft platform with spring-loaded pins to hold the platform stably in a deployed position.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Terleski's spring-loaded locking mechanism with McCrea's retractable step to provide stability in the deployed position. Petitioner argued that adding a lock to a deployable step was a simple, well-known solution to the predictable problem of instability.
- Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known locking mechanism from one platform (Terleski) to a similar foldable step (McCrea), which would have been a predictable and straightforward modification for a POSITA.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Suiter (Patent 4,432,436).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Suiter, which discloses a "Compact Self-Storing Boat Ladder," teaches every limitation of claim 5. Suiter describes a deployable ladder (step) with a top and underside. The "means for coupling" was argued to be Suiter's post pivotally coupled to brackets attached to the boat, which permits 180-degree rotation from a stored position to a deployed position. The "means for locking" was argued to be Suiter's disclosure of a stop pin that can be passed through apertures to hold the ladder. Petitioner argued that although Suiter described the pin's function as limiting forward swinging, the structure itself was capable of performing the claimed locking function, thereby anticipating the claim.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Jaramillo and Curi with the 2006 Bayliner Manual or with Ord and Terry to address potentially narrower claim constructions of "recess" and "step." Petitioner also asserted that claim 5 is anticipated by King (Application # US2008/0277958) and is obvious over Terry (Patent 4,462,485).

"recess": Petitioner proposed that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this term should be construed as "an indentation or alcove." This broad construction was central to the argument that Jaramillo's depiction of a step folding into the general stern area of a boat, rather than a form-fitting cavity, meets the claim limitation.
"spring biased locking mechanism": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a device that includes a spring biasing a movable member to interlock two components." This construction was intended to be broad enough to encompass the torsion spring mechanism in Curi and the spring-loaded pins in Terleski.
"means for locking...": For this means-plus-function term in claim 5, Petitioner identified the corresponding structure in the ’880 patent as a spring-biased pin, a simple pin, a bolt, or a catch lock. This interpretation supported the argument that the simple pin-and-aperture systems in Suiter and King were functionally equivalent structures that anticipated the claim.

Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-6 of the ’880 patent as unpatentable.