PTAB

IPR2017-00962

Boydstun Equipment Mfg LLC v. Cottrell Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Ratcheting Tie-Down Apparatus and System
  • Brief Description: The ’140 patent discloses a winch tie-down apparatus designed for vehicle transporters. The apparatus features a winch assembly with both a primary ratchet mechanism, which prevents the spool from unwinding under tension, and a secondary ratchet mechanism, used to tighten a strap with a repeating lever action, located together on a single end of the spool's shaft for improved operator accessibility.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Ruan in view of Cottrell - Claims 1-8 are obvious over Ruan in view of Cottrell.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ruan (Application # 2006/0013667) and Cottrell (Patent 5,314,275).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Ruan taught a winch with all the essential features claimed in the ’140 patent, including a primary ratchet to prevent unwinding and a built-in secondary ratchet for tightening. The critical distinction, Petitioner argued, was that Ruan’s primary and secondary ratchets were located on opposite ends of the spool shaft. The sole alleged point of novelty in the ’140 patent was the placement of both ratchet mechanisms on the same end of the shaft.
    • Motivation to Combine: The petition argued that Cottrell, which pertains to tie-down rollers for car carriers, provided the explicit motivation to make this modification. Cottrell taught that for operator accessibility on a vehicle transporter, the ratchet mechanism must be located "at the outside end of each tie-down bar where it can be reached from outside of the car carrier." A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would therefore combine Ruan’s dual-ratchet system with Cottrell’s teaching on accessibility by moving Ruan’s primary ratchet to the same end as its secondary ratchet to achieve the known, desired benefit of convenient, single-point operation.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended this combination was a predictable design choice involving the simple rearrangement of known elements to improve functionality in a well-understood manner. A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in producing the claimed configuration, as it required only ordinary skill to implement a known design principle to solve a known problem.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Boice in view of Ruan - Claims 1-8 are obvious over Boice in view of Ruan.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Boice (Patent 6,824,121) and Ruan (Application # 2006/0013667).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Boice disclosed a winch with a primary ratchet and a provision for using a secondary ratchet (a nut for attaching a standard wrench), both accessible on the same end of the shaft. The key difference was that Boice’s secondary ratchet was a separate, removable tool, whereas the ’140 patent claimed a built-in secondary ratchet. The petition asserted that Ruan supplied the missing element by disclosing a fully integrated, built-in secondary ratchet mechanism that uses spring-loaded pins to create a link-drive relationship.
    • Motivation to Combine: The petition stated that Boice established a clear design need for a secondary ratchet to improve the convenience of tightening a winch on a vehicle transporter. Ruan provided a known, available design for an integrated secondary ratchet. A POSITA would combine these references by replacing Boice’s less convenient removable-wrench concept with Ruan’s more efficient built-in mechanism. This combination would be a common-sense engineering step to improve the Boice device.
    • Expectation of Success: This modification was framed as a simple substitution of one known type of secondary ratchet for another to achieve the predictable benefits of an integrated tool. A POSITA would expect the combination to work, as the respective functions of Boice's primary ratchet and Ruan's secondary ratchet mechanism would be preserved in the combined device.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "in mechanical contact with": Petitioner proposed the construction "pressing against." This was argued to be critical for mapping Ruan onto the claims, as Ruan discloses spring-loaded "pushing-pins" that press against an inner face of a fixed base to create the link-drive relationship for the secondary ratchet. This action, under the proposed construction, would satisfy the "mechanical contact" limitation.
  • "coupled": Petitioner proposed the construction "affixed or engaged." This dual-definition was asserted to be necessary to accurately interpret claim 1, where a pawl mechanism is "engaged" with ratchet teeth (a non-permanent, functional connection), while the ratchet head is "affixed" to the ratchet gear (a more permanent, structural connection).

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-8 of the ’140 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.