PTAB

IPR2017-00975

PC Tel Inc v. AllTech Communications LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Self Guying Communication Tower
  • Brief Description: The ’883 patent discloses a mobile, self-guying tower system for communications or lighting applications. The system features a trailer-mounted, telescoping tower that can pivot from a horizontal transport position to a vertical operational position, stabilized by pivotally mounted outriggers and guy wires connected between the tower and the trailer chassis or outriggers.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Method Claims - Claims 2 and 4 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Guenin.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Guenin (EP 0296957).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Guenin, which discloses a self-erecting telescopic mast for an antenna, teaches every step of method claims 2 and 4. Guenin shows leveling a trailer with a chassis, wheels, and a hitch (claim 2.1); moving a pivotally mounted tower to a vertical position via hydraulic cylinders (claim 2.2); moving pivotally mounted outriggers from a retracted to an extended position (claim 2.3); and attaching guy wires from the tower to the chassis and outriggers and tensioning them (claim 2.4). Petitioner asserted that claim 4, which recites a "lighting tower," is also anticipated because the method steps are identical, and the underlying structure in Guenin is suitable for either communications or lighting.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Guenin and Gustafsson - Claims 1-8 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Guenin in view of Gustafsson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Guenin (EP 0296957), Gustafsson (Patent 5,531,419).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Guenin teaches nearly all limitations of the challenged claims, including a trailer with a chassis, a pivotally mounted telescopic tower, a raising/lowering mechanism, pivotally mounted outriggers, and a self-guying wire system. The asserted combination with Gustafsson addresses the limitation of outrigger feet that can be "adjusted vertically." While Guenin shows outrigger pads, it does not explicitly teach their vertical adjustability. Gustafsson was cited to expressly teach outriggers with vertically adjustable feet to level the structure on uneven ground.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to incorporate the vertically adjustable feet of Gustafsson into the Guenin system. This modification would improve the stability and leveling of the trailer, which is a critical consideration for antenna positioning, thereby allowing the tower to be leveled more effectively than with the non-adjustable pads of Guenin.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as incorporating adjustable feet onto outriggers was a well-known, simple mechanical modification to improve the functionality of mobile towers.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Engeler and Koether - Claims 1-8 are obvious over Engeler in view of Koether.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Engeler (European Patent Application 0370314 A2), Koether (Patent 4,220,981).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Engeler teaches a mobile antenna assembly with a telescopic mast, pivotally mounted outriggers, and guy wires, but shows the assembly mounted on a truck. Koether teaches a mobile lighting tower with a telescoping mast mounted on a wheeled trailer with a hitch, along with mechanisms to both pivot the mast and extend it telescopically. The combination of Engeler and Koether was argued to teach all limitations of claims 1 and 3. For the method claims (2, 4), the combination similarly teaches all recited steps.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references for several reasons. First, it would have been obvious to mount Engeler’s antenna assembly on a standard, hitchable trailer like that in Koether to increase versatility, allowing the transport vehicle to be decoupled and used for other purposes. Second, a POSITA would find it obvious to interchange the antenna of Engeler with the floodlights of Koether depending on the desired application, as both are simply payloads for a mobile mast. Finally, the more detailed raising/lowering mechanisms of Koether would be a natural and obvious addition to mechanize the Engeler system.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining a known tower assembly with a known trailer and drive mechanism was presented as a routine design choice with predictable results.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including grounds that claims 1-8 are obvious over Tanner (European Patent Application 1003238) in view of Guenin, and that certain claims are obvious over Tanner in view of Guenin and Koether. These grounds relied on similar arguments, substituting Tanner as the base reference teaching a mobile telecommunications mast on a trailer.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "a mechanism to raise and lower the tower" (claims 1, 3): Petitioner proposed this term should be construed broadly to mean "a mechanism either to pivot the tower or to telescopically extend and retract the tower, or both." This construction was based on ambiguity in the specification, which discusses both tilting the tower to a vertical position and erecting/extending the telescopic sections, without clearly defining which action constitutes "raising."
  • "retracted ... position" (claims 2, 4) and "retractable" outriggers (claim 3): Petitioner argued that in the context of the patent, "retractable" must be broad enough to include the disclosed pivoting outriggers, not just sliding or telescoping ones. The proposed construction for a "retractable" outrigger was "an outrigger that is movable from an outward-extending position to a non-outward-extending position." This construction was critical for applying prior art that disclosed pivoting, rather than sliding, outriggers to claims reciting "retractable" features.
  • "attaching ... guy wires to the chassis" (claims 2, 4): Petitioner proposed this phrase means "attaching guy wires to the outriggers or the chassis." This construction was based on the specification's description of "chassis guy wire attachment point[s]" being located both near the hitch and on the outriggers themselves.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests that the Board institute an inter partes review and cancel claims 1-8 of Patent 7,062,883 as unpatentable.