PTAB

IPR2016-00039

Costco Wholesale Corp v. Robert Bosch LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Windshield Wiper Assembly with Wind Deflector
  • Brief Description: The ’588 patent discloses a windshield wiper assembly comprising a flexible, belt-shaped spring support element, a rubber wiper strip on its lower surface, and a wind deflection strip (or spoiler) on its upper surface. The key feature is a hollow wind deflection strip with an internal support wall to stabilize its sides.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1 and 14 by Prohaska

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Prohaska (U.K. Patent No. G.B. 2,106,775).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Prohaska, which was not considered during prosecution, discloses every element of claims 1 and 14. Prohaska teaches a wiper blade with a hollow spoiler (wind deflector) having a triangular cross-section to counteract wind lift at high speeds. Petitioner contended that Prohaska's flexible strip (30), which holds the spoiler, functions as the claimed "elongated belt-shaped, flexible spring support element." The back (31) of this flexible strip forms a wall between the two diverging sides of the spoiler, directly corresponding to the claimed "support means" made up of a wall. For claim 14, Petitioner asserted that Prohaska's teaching of inserting "individual flexible strips in the head of the wiper element" inherently discloses the claimed two-rail support structure.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1 and 14 over Prohaska in view of Appel

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Prohaska (U.K. Patent No. G.B. 2,106,775) and Appel (Patent 3,192,551).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Appel discloses a conventional simplified spring wiper blade with a flexible, belt-shaped "spring backbone element" that distributes pressure uniformly across a windshield. Prohaska discloses a lightweight, hollow wind deflector (spoiler) designed to be retrofitted onto wiper blades to maintain contact pressure at high speeds. The ’588 patent itself acknowledged that prior art wipers combined these three basic components: a support element, a wiper strip, and a wind deflector.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA), aware of the advantages of flexible spring support elements like Appel's, would combine it with Prohaska's hollow spoiler. The motivation stemmed from the known problems of solid spoilers being heavy, costly, and stiff, as identified in the ’588 patent itself. A POSA would replace a solid spoiler with Prohaska’s known hollow alternative to achieve a lighter, cheaper, and more flexible assembly.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involved the simple substitution of one known type of spoiler for another on a known type of wiper support element to achieve the predictable benefits of reduced weight and improved performance.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 1, 12, and 14 over Kotlarski in view of Prohaska

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kotlarski (PCT Publication No. WO99/02383) and Prohaska (U.K. Patent No. G.B. 2,106,775).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Kotlarski, also not considered by the examiner, discloses a modern flat-style wiper blade with all elements of the challenged claims except for a hollow wind deflector. Kotlarski teaches an elongated, spring-elastic support element with two spring rails, a rubber wiper strip, and an integrated solid wind deflector strip on its top surface. Kotlarski also explicitly teaches a recess in the center of its wind deflector for a connection device, mapping directly to the limitation of claim 12. Prohaska provides the missing element: a hollow wind deflector with an internal support wall.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would be motivated to substitute the hollow spoiler from Prohaska for the solid deflector in Kotlarski to address the well-known problems associated with heavy wiper blades, such as premature wear of drive elements, higher material costs, and the need for a more powerful drive system. This substitution is a technology-independent improvement to make the product lighter and cheaper.
    • Expectation of Success: The substitution would yield the predictable result of a lighter-weight wiper blade. A POSA would recognize that the internal support wall taught by Prohaska would preserve the spoiler's aerodynamic function while achieving the weight-saving advantages. The combination was a logical design choice using established components for their known functions.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including claims 1 and 14 over Prohaska and Hoyler (German Patent No. D.E. 1,028,896), and claims 1, 12, and 14 over Prohaska and Merkel (PCT Publication No. WO99/12784). These grounds relied on similar arguments, substituting Prohaska's hollow spoiler into other known flat-blade wiper designs.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 12, and 14 of the ’588 patent as unpatentable.