PTAB

IPR2016-01197

Bear Archery Inc v. James Kempf

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Archery Bow
  • Brief Description: The ’693 patent discloses a "reverse draw" archery bow or crossbow where the limbs extend in a forward direction, parallel to the projectile's path. The core concept is to increase the power stroke by having the user pull the launch string toward and past the central riser, into a concave area formed between the limbs.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Nishioka ’987 - Claims 1-3 are anticipated by Nishioka under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nishioka (4,879,987) (“Nishioka ’987”).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Nishioka ’987, an uncited prior art reference, taught every element of the challenged claims. It disclosed a reverse-draw "shooting bow" (crossbow) with a riser, forward-extending limbs, and string guides (explicitly mentioning interchangeable pulleys or cams) journaled to the limbs. For the key limitation of engaging a projectile "on a side of said riser opposite" where the string guides are located, Petitioner asserted that Nishioka ’987 provided an explicit suggestion. The reference stated that the "bowstring catch 16 may be positioned more... rearwardly on the frame... to increase the bowstring travel." A POSITA would understand this modification results in the string being drawn to the rearward side of the riser, thereby anticipating the claimed configuration. Nishioka ’987 also taught the crossbow and latch/trigger assembly features of dependent claims 2 and 3.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Nishioka and Meininger - Claims 1-3 are obvious over either Nishioka reference in view of Meininger under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nishioka ’987 or Nishioka (4,766,874) (“Nishioka ’874”), in view of Meininger (4,178,904).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the Nishioka references taught the fundamental elements of a modern reverse-draw compound crossbow. To the extent the Nishioka references were found not to explicitly teach drawing the string fully past the riser, Meininger supplied this teaching. Meininger disclosed a reverse-draw bow where the string "actually overlaps [the] central portion" (the riser) before release, and explicitly stated this configuration was "found to provide increased arrow velocity."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the modern compound bow design of Nishioka with the power-stroke-enhancing technique from Meininger to achieve the well-known and highly desired goal of increased projectile speed. The market demand for faster crossbows provided a strong incentive to apply Meininger's known method for increasing arrow velocity to the Nishioka design.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known mechanical principle (longer power stroke equals greater speed) to a conventional bow structure. A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because the result—increased arrow velocity—was a predictable outcome of extending the draw length.

Ground 3: Alternative Obviousness over Nizov and Nishioka - Claims 1-3 are obvious over Nizov in view of either Nishioka reference.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nizov (5,630,405) in view of either Nishioka ’987 or Nishioka ’874.

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative based on the Patent Owner's infringement contentions in related litigation. Petitioner argued that if the claim term "opposite side" is interpreted to cover a configuration where the string is drawn past only a portion of the riser (as in the accused product), then the claims would read on Nizov. Nizov, which was cited during prosecution, taught a reverse-draw crossbow where the bowstring is drawn past the base of a triangular riser but not past the entire riser structure. Under this interpretation, Nizov taught every claim element except for the use of a "cam," as Nizov disclosed pulleys.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to substitute a cam for a pulley in the Nizov design. The Nishioka references explicitly taught that cams and pulleys were known, interchangeable, and functionally equivalent string guides. Replacing pulleys with cams was a common design choice to alter the draw cycle characteristics of a bow.
    • Expectation of Success: The substitution of a cam for a pulley was a simple and routine modification in the art of compound bow design. The result would have been predictable, yielding a bow with a different draw-force curve but otherwise functioning as expected.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional anticipation and obviousness challenges against claims 1-3 based on Nishioka ’874 alone, arguing its teachings and explicit suggestions were analogous to those in Nishioka ’987. Petitioner also presented an alternative obviousness ground combining Nishioka and Nizov to address a potentially narrower construction of the term "journaled."

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "A Projectile Engaged to Said String on a Side of Said Riser Opposite a Side... Where Said... String Guide are Located": Petitioner argued this key limitation required the projectile to be engaged with the bowstring at a point "rearward of the entire riser." This construction was based on the prosecution history, where the applicant amended the specification and added a new figure (Fig. 12) showing the engagement point entirely behind the riser to overcome an examiner's objection. Petitioner contended this interpretation was necessary to distinguish the claims from prior art like Nizov, where the string is drawn past only a portion of the riser.
  • "Riser": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "the structure that the limbs are attached to," consistent with its plain meaning in the art and its usage in the specification.
  • "String Guide": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a cam or idler wheel/pulley," as the specification described these components as examples of string guides.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-3 of the ’693 patent as unpatentable.