PTAB

IPR2017-01316

Xenith, LLC v. Riddell, Inc.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Sports Helmet
  • Brief Description: The ’118 patent relates to a protective helmet, such as a football helmet, designed with a plastic shell incorporating specific structural features. The invention describes a shell with a raised central band that extends from the crown region to the rear region, a first plurality of vent openings formed in the shell outside of and aligned along a side of this raised band, and a chin strap for securing the helmet.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Sears - Claims 1, 5, 11, 25, 30, and 32 are unpatentable as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Sears.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sears (The Wish Book for the 1971 Christmas Season Catalog).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the Sears catalog, a prior art printed publication, explicitly or inherently discloses every limitation of the challenged independent and dependent claims. Petitioner provided annotated images from the catalog to map features of a commercially available helmet to the claim elements. For independent claims 1 and 25, Petitioner asserted that Sears shows a plastic helmet shell with the required front, crown, rear, and side regions; an integrally formed raised central band extending across the crown to the rear; a plurality of vent openings positioned outside of and along the raised central band; and a chin strap assembly. The argument extended to dependent claims, asserting that Sears shows the raised band having a width defined by opposed sidewalls (claim 5), at least one vent opening in the crown region (claim 11), and that the raised central band itself lacks any vent openings (claims 30 and 32).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Sears and Halstead - Claims 1, 11-13, 25, and 33-36 are obvious over Sears in view of Halstead.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sears (The Wish Book for the 1971 Christmas Season Catalog) and Halstead (Patent 6,219,850).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Sears taught the base helmet design, including a shell with a raised central band. Halstead was argued to teach specific ventilation improvements that, when combined with Sears, render the claims obvious. Halstead was cited for its disclosure of a helmet with multiple pluralities of vent openings for symmetrical ventilation (addressing claims 13 and 35), vent openings having an elongated configuration to increase airflow while preventing finger insertion (claim 33), and the placement of vents in the rear region of the shell (claim 12). Petitioner also argued that Sears teaches a raised central band lacking any vents (claim 36), a feature that a POSITA would maintain for structural integrity.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of Sears and Halstead to improve upon a known helmet design. The primary motivations stated were to increase player comfort by improving ventilation and heat escape, and to enhance safety and durability. A designer would look to known ventilation techniques, such as those in Halstead, and apply them to a conventional helmet structure like that shown in Sears. The combination was presented as a predictable fusion of known elements to solve the known problems of heat retention and structural integrity in sports helmets.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that combining Halstead’s ventilation features with the Sears helmet was a straightforward design modification. A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because it involved applying familiar ventilation concepts to a standard helmet architecture, with each element performing its known function to yield a predictable result.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Sears and Ispas - Claims 1, 3-7, 25, and 26 are obvious over Sears in view of Ispas.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sears (The Wish Book for the 1971 Christmas Season Catalog) and Ispas (Patent D230,911).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that Sears provided the basic helmet structure, which a POSITA would have been motivated to modify with the ornamental and structural features taught by the Ispas design patent. Ispas was argued to disclose the specific geometry of the raised central band recited in several dependent claims. This included the band having lower side portions that extend from the rear of the shell toward the ear flaps (claim 3), the termination of these side portions proximate to the ear opening (claims 4 and 7), and the band having a curvilinear configuration as it extends between the crown and rear regions (claims 6 and 26).
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine was twofold. First, a POSITA would incorporate the curvilinear design of Ispas for aesthetic reasons, to give the helmet a "sleek" appearance desirable to athletes. Second, and more functionally, a POSITA would add the geometric features of Ispas to the Sears helmet to add rigidity and structural integrity to the shell, particularly in the rear and lower side portions, which were identified as weaker areas prone to impact and flexing.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued there would be a high expectation of success in this combination. Modifying a standard helmet by adding a continuous, curvilinear raised band as taught by Ispas was a predictable design choice to enhance both aesthetics and structural robustness, using known principles of mechanical design.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted further obviousness challenges against claims 1, 11-13, 25, and 33-36 based on combinations of Rappleyea (Patent 3,729,744) and Halstead, and Monica (Patent 5,732,414) and Halstead, relying on similar arguments that Rappleyea and Monica provided alternative base helmet designs that would have been obviously combined with Halstead's ventilation features.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 3-7, 11-13, 25-26, 30, and 32-36 of Patent 8,528,118 as unpatentable.