Costco Wholesale Corp v. Robert Bosch LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2016-00034
• Patent #: 6,973,698
• Filed: October 9, 2015
• Petitioner(s): Costco Wholesale Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): Robert Bosch LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Wiper Blade
• Brief Description: The ’698 patent is directed to a vehicle wiper blade featuring a spring-elastic carrying element. The element is designed to distribute contact pressure along the wiper strip such that the force against the window is greater in the center section than in at least one of the end sections, which purportedly helps the wiper lip flip over smoothly and avoid knocking noises.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Arai and Appel '770 - Claim 1 is obvious over Arai in view of Appel '770.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Arai (Patent 4,807,326) and Appel ’770 (Patent 4,028,770).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Arai taught a wiper blade with a spring-elastic backing member that distributes force along the wiper strip. Arai’s figures allegedly demonstrated that under high pressure, the contact force is lower at the ends compared to the center. While Arai aimed for uniform pressure distribution, it disclosed the physical behavior of non-uniform pressure under certain conditions. Appel ’770 taught a pre-stressed, curved backing member designed for beam-style wiper blades, where the curvature in the center section is sharper than in the end sections. Petitioner contended that Appel ’770’s structure, which is curved sharper than the windshield it wipes, inherently functions to produce a pressure profile with higher force in the center, as suggested by Arai’s disclosure.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Arai’s simplified, cost-effective wiper blade design with Appel ’770’s teachings on specific curvatures. The motivation would be to create a wiper blade that effectively distributes contact force across a curved windshield by using a pre-curved backing element (from Appel ’770) that is sharper in the center, thereby achieving the pressure profile (higher force in the center) shown to be possible in Arai to ensure good wiping quality.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because combining a known pre-curved support element with a known wiper blade design to manage pressure distribution was a predictable application of established engineering principles in the field of wiper technology.

Ground 2: Anticipation by Swanepoel '564 - Claim 1 is anticipated by Swanepoel '564.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Swanepoel ’564 (Patent 5,325,564).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Swanepoel ’564 expressly or inherently disclosed every limitation of Claim 1. Swanepoel ’564 described a windscreen wiper with a curved, elongate support element (backbone) of tapered thickness and width. It explicitly taught a concave curvature sharper than the window and a curvature in the center section that is sharper than in its end sections. Petitioner argued that while Swanepoel ’564 discussed achieving different loading profiles, the inherent physical property of its described structure, when pressed against a curved windshield, was a force distribution with a higher contact force in the middle than at the ends. Petitioner asserted this inherent disclosure satisfied the claim limitation requiring the contact force to be greater in the center section than in at least one end section.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Swanepoel '564 and DE '939 - Claim 1 is obvious over Swanepoel '564 in view of DE '939.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Swanepoel ’564 (Patent 5,325,564) and DE ’939 (German Published Patent Application 2 313 939).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Swanepoel ’564 was presented as the primary reference, teaching a curved backing member with varied curvature along its length. DE ’939 was introduced because it specifically addressed the problem of inadequate cleaning at the "edge regions" of highly convex panes due to low contact pressure at the ends. DE ’939 proposed solving this by using a pretensioned spring rail with a radius of curvature smaller than the radius of the convex pane, ensuring sufficient contact pressure across the entire length.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, starting with the design of Swanepoel ’564, would look to solve the known problem of maintaining adequate pressure at the ends of a wiper on a highly curved windshield. DE ’939 directly addressed this exact problem and provided an explicit solution: ensuring the wiper’s curvature is sharper than the window’s. A POSITA would combine the specific problem-solution teaching of DE ’939 with the structural design of Swanepoel ’564 to predictably achieve a wiper blade with improved performance on curved surfaces.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be a predictable use of known elements. Applying DE ’939’s clear teachings on curvature to Swanepoel ’564’s blade structure would predictably result in the claimed pressure distribution.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on Arai in further view of Appel '551, DE '939, or Swanepoel '564, as well as obviousness over Swanepoel '564 alone. These grounds relied on similar theories of combining known wiper blade elements to achieve predictable pressure distributions.

4. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claim 1 of the ’698 patent as unpatentable.