PTAB

IPR2017-01317

Xenith LLC v. Riddell Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Sports Helmet
  • Brief Description: The ’818 patent discloses a protective sports helmet, such as a football helmet, comprising a plastic shell with features including a raised central band, a face guard, a chin strap, and pluralities of elongated vent openings aligned along the sides of the raised central band.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Sears/Rappleyea and Halstead - Claims 41-42, 49, 51, 56-57, 62, and 65 are obvious over Sears or Rappleyea in view of Halstead.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sears (The Wish Book for the 1971 Christmas Season Catalog), Rappleyea (Patent 3,729,744), and Halstead (Patent 6,219,850).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Sears and Rappleyea each disclosed a conventional football helmet with all the basic structural elements of independent claims 41 and 62, including a plastic shell, a face guard, a chin strap, and an integrally formed raised central band that lacks vent openings. Petitioner asserted that while Sears and Rappleyea teach vent openings, they do not explicitly disclose the claimed "elongated" shape. Halstead was introduced to teach a helmet shell with first and second pluralities of elongated vent openings, as well as features recited in dependent claims such as the number and positioning of the vents and the uniform thickness of the shell.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the references to improve upon known helmet designs. A POSITA would combine the ventilation features of Halstead with the helmet structure of Sears or Rappleyea to increase player comfort by improving airflow and heat dissipation. Conversely, a POSITA would add the raised central band from Sears or Rappleyea to Halstead's design to increase rigidity and impact resistance in the crown region, a common and known technique for strengthening helmets.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that incorporating known ventilation features into a standard helmet shell, or adding a common structural reinforcement like a raised band, were straightforward design modifications. A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation that such a combination would predictably result in a helmet with both improved ventilation and structural strength.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Monica and Halstead - Claims 41-42, 49, 56-57, 62, and 65 are obvious over Monica in view of Halstead.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Monica (Patent 5,732,414) and Halstead (Patent 6,219,850).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Monica disclosed a football helmet with nearly all limitations of the independent claims, including a plastic shell with an integrally formed raised central band. As with the first ground, Halstead was cited to supply the missing limitations of "elongated" vent openings residing outside the raised central band and the substantially uniform shell thickness recited in dependent claim 65.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was presented as analogous to Ground 1. Petitioner argued a POSITA would look to improve the Monica helmet design, which lacks significant ventilation, by incorporating the known elongated vent openings from Halstead. This modification would address the known problem of heat buildup and improve player comfort. The combination was characterized as the simple application of a known technique (adding vents) to a known product (Monica's helmet) to yield predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued success would be expected because adding vent openings to a plastic helmet shell was a well-understood manufacturing process. The result would simply be a helmet with the features of Monica and the added, predictable benefit of ventilation from Halstead.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Sears, Halstead, and Ispas - Claims 43-45, 47-48, and 51 are obvious over Sears in view of Halstead and further in view of Ispas.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sears (1971 Christmas Catalog), Halstead (Patent 6,219,850), and Ispas (Patent D230,911).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Sears and Halstead to address specific dependent claims related to the geometry of the raised central band. Petitioner argued that Ispas, a design patent, disclosed the specific features recited in these claims, including a raised central band with a curvilinear configuration, sidewalls that extend from the crown to the rear region, and lower side portions that terminate near the ear openings.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would be motivated to incorporate the design elements of Ispas into the base Sears/Halstead helmet for both aesthetic and functional reasons. Aesthetically, the curvilinear shape provided a sleek, modern look. Functionally, extending the raised band towards the weaker side and rear regions of the helmet, as taught by Ispas, would increase structural integrity and rigidity, counteracting weaknesses introduced by ear openings.
    • Expectation of Success: Applying the ornamental and functional shape of the Ispas band to another helmet was presented as a matter of ordinary design choice for a POSITA seeking to improve both the look and durability of a helmet.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claim 58 based on the combination of Sears, Halstead, and Marietta (Patent 3,122,752), which was alleged to teach specific limitations regarding the placement of vent openings relative to a face guard connection component.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 41-45, 47-49, 51, 56-58, 62, and 65 of the ’818 patent as unpatentable.