Runway Safe LLC v. Engineered ArrestIng Systems Corp

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2015-01921
• Patent #: 7,597,502
• Filed: September 16, 2015
• Petitioner(s): Runway Safe LLC, Runway Safe Inc., and Runway Safe AB
• Patent Owner(s): Engineering Arresting Systems Corporation
• Challenged Claims: 1-3

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Vehicle Arresting System
• Brief Description: The ’502 patent relates to systems for arresting the forward motion of vehicles, particularly aircraft overrunning a runway. The claimed invention is a vehicle arresting unit comprising a first deformable layer made of ceramic foam and a second frangible layer fabricated to protect the first layer.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3 are obvious over Gwynne in view of Brubaker ’917.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Gwynne (a 1974 technical report from the Royal Aircraft Establishment) and Brubaker ’917 (Patent 4,007,917).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gwynne disclosed all limitations of the challenged claims except for the deformable material being "ceramic foam." Gwynne taught a multi-layer aircraft arresting system using a deformable urea formaldehyde (UF) foam covered by a frangible protective layer of PVC paint and fiberglass cloth. For dependent claim 2, Petitioner asserted that Gwynne's use of a two-layer foam bed, with an upper layer having a lower crushing strength than the bottom layer, constituted an "intermediate material" that was "different from" the bottom compressible material. For claim 3, Gwynne’s foam "fails" by crushing upon impact, as it must be removed and replaced after an arrestment. Brubaker ’917 was cited to supply the missing "ceramic foam" limitation, as it taught using water-insoluble ceramic foams for energy absorption applications.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to replace the UF foam in Gwynne’s system with the ceramic foam taught by Brubaker ’917. This was because UF foam was known to absorb water, which degraded performance and reduced the system's useful life—a known problem in the art. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) circulars at the time required such arresting systems to be water-resistant. Brubaker ’917 explicitly taught that its ceramic foam was superior to conventional plastic foams because it was water-insoluble and did not exhibit a rebound effect, directly addressing the known deficiencies of Gwynne's material.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because the combination involved substituting one known foam material for another to gain a known, predictable benefit (improved water resistance and durability) using the materials for their intended purposes.

Ground 2: Claims 1-3 are obvious over Angley ’025 in view of Brubaker ’917.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Angley ’025 (Patent 5,885,025) and Brubaker ’917 (Patent 4,007,917).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Angley ’025 disclosed a vehicle arresting bed system made of pre-cast blocks of cellular concrete. This cellular concrete served as the deformable, compressible material. Angley also taught applying a protective hardcoat layer and a weather-resistant paint on top, which served as the frangible and intermediate layers. As in Ground 1, Brubaker ’917 was cited for its teaching of using uniform ceramic foam as an energy-absorbing material.
  • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine these references differed from Ground 1. Petitioner argued that Angley ’025 itself described a significant problem with using cellular concrete: the difficulty in achieving material uniformity. This non-uniformity could lead to unpredictable deceleration forces and potential damage to an aircraft. A POSITA would therefore be motivated to replace Angley's non-uniform cellular concrete with the ceramic foam from Brubaker ’917, which was explicitly taught as having a "uniform cellular structure" and "cross-sectionally uniform density." This substitution would solve the known uniformity problem and create a more reliable and safer arresting system.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because Brubaker ’917's material directly provided the uniform properties that Angley ’025's material lacked, leading to the predictable result of a more reliable arresting system.

Ground 3: Claim 2 is obvious over Gwynne in view of Brubaker ’917 (Alternative Ground).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Gwynne and Brubaker ’917.
• Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner presented this ground as a non-redundant alternative to Ground 1's challenge to claim 2. It was predicated on the possibility that the Board might disagree with the claim construction of "different from" used in Ground 1 (where two foam layers with different crushing strengths were considered "different materials"). In this alternative argument, Petitioner re-mapped the elements of Gwynne's disclosure to the claim limitations.
  • Prior Art Mapping: The deformable material was the ceramic foam (substituted from Brubaker ’917). The frangible material was only the top layer of PVC paint. The "intermediate material" of claim 2 was the fiberglass cloth taught by Gwynne, which was positioned between the paint (frangible layer) and the foam (deformable layer). This fiberglass cloth was argued to have a force transmission mitigation characteristic by stiffening and strengthening the underlying foam.
  • Motivation to Combine: The motivation remained the same as in Ground 1: to improve the water resistance and durability of the arresting system. This ground focused solely on providing an alternative mapping of Gwynne's physical layers to the limitations of claim 2.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "different from": Petitioner argued this term should be construed broadly to mean different in any respect, not just in basic material composition. This would include differences in material properties, such as compressive strength. This construction was critical for Ground 1's argument that the two foam layers in Gwynne, having different crushing strengths, constituted "different" materials as required by claim 2.
• "frangible": Citing the patent's specification, Petitioner construed this term to mean breakable or shatterable without implying weakness or delicacy.
• "force transmission mitigation characteristic": Petitioner defined this as an attribute that causes a force to become less harsh or severe, such as by spreading, dissipating, or cushioning the force.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, and 3 of the ’502 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.