PTAB

IPR2015-01252

Pure Fishing Inc v. Globeride Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Oscillate Mechanism for a Fishing Spinning Reel
  • Brief Description: The ’489 patent discloses an oscillate mechanism for a spinning fishing reel that uses a Scotch-yoke linkage to convert rotational handle motion into linear spool reciprocation. The invention focuses on the specific shape of a groove in an oscillate slider, which comprises a central inclined portion and straight portions extending perpendicularly from each end to achieve more even line winding on the spool.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Baumgartner, Italian '177, Schad, and Brackett - Claims 1-4 are obvious over Baumgartner in view of the Italian ’177 Patent and Schad, and further in view of Brackett.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Baumgartner (Patent 5,350,131), The Italian ’177 Patent (Italian Patent No. 694,177), Schad (German Patent Pub. No. 4,227,266), and Brackett (Patent 5,431,130).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Baumgartner taught the foundational elements of the claimed fishing reel, including a Scotch-yoke mechanism with an oscillate slider fixedly mounted to a linearly reciprocating spool shaft. However, Baumgartner disclosed an "S" shaped groove. Petitioner contended that the Italian ’177 Patent disclosed a non-linear slot with an inclined portion between two straight portions, and Schad disclosed a similar guide slot with an oblique section and straight "tails" oriented at a 90° angle to the direction of travel. For claims 3 and 4, Petitioner asserted that Brackett taught a Scotch-yoke mechanism for an engine where the inclined portion of the groove is narrower than the straight portions.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the groove shapes from the Italian ’177 Patent and Schad with the reel mechanism of Baumgartner to solve the well-known problem of uneven line winding. Modifying Baumgartner's groove with these known, functionally similar groove shapes was presented as a simple and predictable substitution to improve oscillation characteristics. A POSITA would have further incorporated the narrower inclined portion from Brackett to reduce mechanical "play" or "slop" in the mechanism, a common design goal.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that success would have been expected, as the combination involved substituting known mechanical elements into a conventional system to achieve their established functions and yield the predictable result of smoother, more uniform line winding.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Baumgartner, Busse, Zanon, and Brackett - Claims 1-4 are obvious over Baumgartner in view of Busse and Zanon, and further in view of Brackett.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Baumgartner (Patent 5,350,131), Busse (German Patent No. 718,316), Zanon (Patent 5,513,814), and Brackett (Patent 5,431,130).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground again relied on Baumgartner for the basic reel structure. Petitioner argued that Busse, which discloses a slider crank to convert circular motion into constant velocity reciprocation, taught a slot with an inclined portion and straight portions extending perpendicularly to the direction of linear motion. To the extent Baumgartner's "fixedly mounted" slider was disputed, Petitioner asserted that Zanon explicitly taught a linearly reciprocating spool spindle with a transverse slideway constrained to move fixedly with the spool shaft. Brackett was again cited for the narrower inclined groove portion relevant to claims 3 and 4.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Baumgartner with Busse to improve the linear reciprocation characteristics of the spool, as Busse was designed to create a more uniform driving motion. Petitioner argued that incorporating the slider/spool shaft combination from Zanon into the Baumgartner reel would be an obvious design choice to ensure linear, non-pivotal movement. The motivation was to achieve the desired outcome of better line winding by combining known mechanical linkages designed for similar purposes.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that success was predictable because the combination involved applying known solutions (Busse's groove, Zanon's slider connection) to a known problem (uneven line winding) in a known device (Baumgartner's reel).

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on the Admitted Prior Art (APA) from the ’489 patent itself in combination with Schad, the Italian ’177 Patent, Busse, Zanon, and Brackett, but relied on similar design modification theories.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner argued that specific claim terms, added during prosecution to overcome prior art, required construction. These constructions were central to Petitioner's argument that the allegedly novel features were, in fact, disclosed in the prior art.

  • "fixedly mounted" (claim 1): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "mounted for non-pivotal movement with the spool shaft." This construction was based on the patentee's prosecution history arguments distinguishing the claimed invention from the pivoting slider in the Italian ’177 Patent. It was argued not to require rigid or inflexible attachment, but merely to exclude arcuate movement.
  • "rear end side of a spool shaft" (claim 1): Petitioner proposed this be construed as "end portion of a spool shaft opposite the spool," based on synonymous language used in the specification and figures.
  • "said oscillate slider reciprocating linearly in an axial direction of and fixedly with respect to said spool shaft" (claim 1): Based on the "fixedly mounted" argument, Petitioner proposed the phrase be construed to mean "...reciprocating linearly...and non-pivotally with respect to said spool shaft."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4 of the ’489 patent as unpatentable.