PTAB

IPR2016-00784

M&P Golf LLC v. Max Out Golf LLC

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Method for Fitting a Golfer with Equipment
Brief Description: The ’695 patent discloses methods for fitting a golfer with equipment. The claimed method involves using a launch monitor to collect ball flight data (e.g., velocity, spin, launch angle) and then using a computer to optimize these parameters, subject to a "maximum ceiling height" constraint, to maximize shot distance and control.

Prior Art Relied Upon: GolfAchiever (a 2002 user manual for a golf analyzer system) and Maltby (a 1995 book on golf club design and fitting).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the GolfAchiever system, a computerized launch monitor that measures and analyzes ball flight data, taught all limitations of the challenged claims except for "selecting a maximum ceiling height for golf ball trajectory that is not based on how the specific golfer hits the golf ball." Petitioner contended that Maltby, a standard text on club fitting, supplied this element by teaching that an excessively high ball trajectory is undesirable due to distance loss and that a fitter should aim for a "normal ball trajectory" that is not too high.
- Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) fitting a golfer would combine the known fitting principles of Maltby (constraining trajectory height to optimize distance) with a computerized fitting tool like GolfAchiever. The combination was presented as a predictable application of a known fitting constraint to a modern analysis tool to improve the overall fitting process.
- Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying a known design choice from the same technical field to a system designed for that exact purpose to achieve predictable improvements.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Gobush (Patent 6,241,622) and Maltby (a 1995 book on golf club design and fitting).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gobush disclosed a launch monitor system that measured launch data and performed iterative calculations to optimize performance, thus teaching most limitations of the claims. As in Ground 1, Petitioner relied on Maltby for its teaching of avoiding excessively high trajectories to maximize distance, which Petitioner equated to imposing the claimed "maximum ceiling height." Gobush's system iteratively calculates trajectories for various launch angles and spin rates, providing a framework into which Maltby's height constraint could be applied.
- Motivation to Combine: The stated motivation was identical to Ground 1. A POSITA would find it obvious to apply Maltby's established trajectory-height fitting principles as a constraint within Gobush's computerized optimization framework to produce better and more realistic club recommendations.
- Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued for a high expectation of success, as this was a predictable combination of known elements within their intended field of use to solve a known problem (the trade-off between trajectory height and distance).

Prior Art Relied Upon: Gobush (Patent 6,241,622), Erlichson (a 1983 physics journal article), and Maltby (a 1995 book on golf club design and fitting).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground supplemented Ground 2 by adding Erlichson. Petitioner asserted that Gobush and Maltby taught the core system and the ceiling-height constraint, respectively. Erlichson was introduced to provide the underlying scientific principles explaining how aerodynamic forces (drag and lift) affect a golf ball's trajectory. Erlichson demonstrated that the optimal launch angle for maximizing distance does not result in the highest possible trajectory, scientifically validating Maltby's practical fitting advice.
- Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that Erlichson's scientific principles would inform a POSITA's understanding and reinforce the motivation to apply Maltby's practical advice to the Gobush system. Erlichson provided a deeper technical rationale for why constraining trajectory height during an optimization process is beneficial.
- Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as yielding predictable results, as Erlichson provided well-understood background knowledge and scientific confirmation for the practical steps taught by the primary references, Gobush and Maltby.

"selecting a maximum ceiling height...": Petitioner proposed that this term should be construed as "selecting a constraint placed on the trajectory of the ball in determining the optimal ball flight conditions such that a trajectory with an apogee that exceeds the maximum ceiling height is considered non-optimal." This construction was central to mapping Maltby's teaching of avoiding a trajectory that is "too high" to the specific claim language.
"optimizing the launch angle, velocity and spin rate...": Petitioner proposed this term means "generating and providing information based upon which the user can modify equipment to achieve maximum distance and control."

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-6 of Patent 7,967,695 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.