PTAB

IPR2015-01781

Arctic Cat Inc v. Polaris Industries Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: SIDE-BY-SIDE ATV
  • Brief Description: The ’028 patent relates to a rear-engine, four-wheel drive, side-by-side all-terrain vehicle (ATV). The invention centers on specific vehicle frame configurations, including a frame with distinct front, mid, and rear portions, where the rear portion has upper and lower sections designed to extend over and under the engine, transmission, and rear axle assembly.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Nechushtan/Furuhashi - Claims 24-33, 35-38, 41-42, and 45-46 are obvious over Nechushtan in view of Furuhashi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nechushtan (Patent 5,954,364) and Furuhashi (Patent 5,327,989).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Nechushtan, a patent for an off-road vehicle space frame, disclosed all the structural frame limitations of independent claim 24. This included a frame with front, mid, and rear portions; side-by-side seating supported by the mid-frame; and a rear-mounted engine supported by a rear frame portion comprising upper and lower sections. The upper rear frame included a removable inner portion. Petitioner contended that to the extent Nechushtan did not explicitly disclose a four-wheel drive system, Furuhashi taught a conventional four-wheel drive, rear-engine ATV and provided the necessary components, such as a front drive shaft to power the front wheels from a rear transmission.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Nechushtan and Furuhashi to achieve the predictable benefits of a four-wheel drive system in an off-road vehicle like Nechushtan’s. These known advantages included increased traction and better acceleration in off-road conditions. Implementing Furuhashi’s teachings was presented as a routine engineering task, especially since Nechushtan’s disclosure of a front differential already implied that the front wheels were intended to be driven.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because applying Furuhashi's known four-wheel drive system to Nechushtan's frame was a simple arrangement of old elements, each performing its known function, to achieve a predictable result without altering the intended operation of Nechushtan’s vehicle.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Nechushtan/Hill - Claims 88-89, 94, 97, and 99 are obvious over Nechushtan in view of Hill.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nechushtan (Patent 5,954,364) and Hill (Patent 3,407,893).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that the combination of Nechushtan and Hill rendered independent claim 88 obvious. Similar to Ground 1, Nechushtan was alleged to teach the core frame structure, rear-engine placement, and side-by-side seating. Hill, which disclosed a low-profile, side-by-side, four-wheel drive vehicle, was cited for its teaching of a front drive shaft extending from a rear transmission to the front wheels. Critically, Hill taught positioning this drive shaft laterally between the seating surfaces, a specific limitation required by claim 88.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted multiple motivations. A POSITA would have been motivated to equip Nechushtan’s vehicle with Hill’s four-wheel drive system to gain known performance benefits. Furthermore, implementing Hill’s specific drive shaft configuration—running between the seats—would have been desirable for two reasons: it provided the most direct and efficient path from the transmission to the front axle, and it allowed the seats to be positioned lower in the vehicle, thereby lowering the center of gravity for improved stability, a well-known advantage for ATVs.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as a routine engineering task. A POSITA would have recognized Hill's powertrain was suitable for Nechushtan's vehicle and would have understood how to implement it to achieve predictable improvements in performance and vehicle balance.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including:

    • Claims adding a power-to-weight ratio (claim 34) over Nechushtan, Furuhashi, and Kraus (Patent 4,693,134).
    • Claims for adding routine components like a fuel tank and battery (claims 90, 93) over Nechushtan, Hill, and Furuhashi.
    • Claims adding vehicle width limitations (claims 91-92) over Nechushtan, Hill, and the Hart's Hunter article.
    • Claims adding a continuously variable transmission (claim 96) over Nechushtan, Hill, and Nash (Application # 2004/0195797).
    • Claims adding stabilizer bars (claims 98, 100) over Nechushtan, Hill, and Fujimori (Patent 7,270,336).
    • Claims adding a power-to-weight ratio (claim 101) over Nechushtan, Hill, and Kraus.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Front frame portion," "mid frame portion," and "rear-frame portion": Petitioner noted these terms were potentially vague but, for the purpose of the IPR, adopted the Patent Owner’s previously asserted construction: "three portions of the frame, the mid-frame portion supporting the seating area, the front frame portion being in front of the mid frame portion, and the rear frame portion being behind the mid frame portion."
  • "Vertical member": Petitioner proposed that the broadest reasonable construction is a member "generally perpendicular to the horizontal axis of the vehicle." This construction was argued to be consistent with the ’028 patent’s specification, which shows frame members that are generally, but not perfectly, perpendicular.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 24-38, 41-42, 45-46, 88-97, and 99-101 of the ’028 patent as unpatentable.