PTAB

IPR2016-00038

Costco Wholesale Corp v. Robert Bosch LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Glass Wiper Blade For Motor Vehicles
  • Brief Description: The ’974 patent discloses an automotive wiper blade assembly featuring a curved, band-shaped, spring-elastic support element. A separate airfoil component is mounted directly to the convex surface of the support element to counteract wind lift at high vehicle speeds.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, and 8 are obvious over Prohaska in view of Appel.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Prohaska (UK Application # GB 2,106,775) and Appel (Patent 3,192,551).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Appel disclosed the core structure of the asserted claims, namely a “beam-style” wiper blade with a curved, spring-elastic support element (backbone element 45) that distributes pressure and has a rubber wiper strip (blade 46) mounted to its concave surface. Prohaska was argued to teach the remaining key limitation: a separate spoiler component that can be attached to a wiper blade to form a leading-edge face that counteracts wind lift. Petitioner asserted that Prohaska's spoiler, when applied to Appel's support element, would be mounted to the convex surface and form an acute angle to deflect wind, thus meeting the limitations of independent claim 1. Dependent claims 2 (leading-edge face facing away from the window) and 8 (spoiler extending over the entire blade length) were also argued to be explicitly taught by Prohaska as beneficial for performance.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the references to solve the well-known problem of wiper blade lift-off at high speeds. Appel provided a simplified, effective wiper blade structure, and Prohaska taught a known solution (an add-on spoiler) to a known problem (wind lift) inherent in such blades. The combination was presented as a predictable application of a known technique to an existing device to improve its function.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because combining a spoiler with a wiper blade was a common and well-understood practice, and the result—improved high-speed performance—was the predictable outcome of using the components for their intended purposes.

Ground 2: Claims 1, 2, and 8 are obvious over Prohaska in view of Hoyler.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Prohaska (UK Application # GB 2,106,775) and Hoyler (German Patent # 1,028,896).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented a similar argument to Ground 1, substituting Hoyler for Appel as the primary reference. Petitioner argued that Hoyler, like Appel, disclosed all elements of claim 1 except for the separate spoiler component. Specifically, Hoyler taught a wiper blade with an elongated, band-shaped, spring-elastic support element (5) with concave and convex surfaces, a wiper strip (1) mounted on the concave side, and a connection device (9, 10, 7) on the convex side. As in the first ground, Prohaska was argued to supply the teaching of a separate spoiler component that could be attached to the convex surface of Hoyler’s support element to provide the claimed leading-edge face. The limitations of dependent claims 2 and 8 were again argued to be met by the explicit teachings of Prohaska.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was identical to that asserted in Ground 1. A POSITA would combine Prohaska’s spoiler with Hoyler’s beam-style blade to achieve the known benefits of reduced wind lift and improved wiping performance. The combination was characterized as a simple aggregation of old elements, with each performing its known function to yield predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success: The rationale for an expectation of success was the same as in Ground 1, based on the straightforward and predictable nature of adding a known aerodynamic component to a known type of wiper blade structure.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, and 8 of the ’974 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.