PTAB

IPR2017-01363

Nautilus Inc v. ICON Health & Fitness Inc

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Multi-Cable Exercise Machine
  • Brief Description: The ’047 patent relates to a multi-cable exercise machine that uses a single magnetic flywheel as a resistance mechanism. The invention includes configurations with two or four pull cables, sensors to track flywheel rotation, and an electronics console to calculate and display workout metrics like energy expended.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Sleamaker and Hanoun - Claims 1-5 and 11-13 are obvious over Sleamaker in view of Hanoun.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sleamaker (Patent 5,354,251) and Hanoun (Application # 2007/0232452).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Sleamaker, a patent for a swimming simulation exercise machine, disclosed all primary limitations of independent claim 1. This included a cable exercise machine with multiple pull cables linked to a single resistance mechanism comprising a magnetic flywheel attached to a central shaft that supports multiple cable spools. For dependent claims related to workout tracking, Petitioner asserted that Sleamaker taught a monitor and sensors for measuring the number of flywheel turns to determine energy output. Hanoun was cited as providing a more detailed disclosure of a computerized system for a flywheel-based machine, including using an optical sensor to count flywheel rotations and an energy tracker that uses rotation count and resistance level as inputs.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references to meet the known market demand for robust workout tracking on exercise equipment. Because Sleamaker already disclosed basic tracking electronics, a POSITA would have looked to a complementary reference like Hanoun for a more comprehensive and well-understood system to implement this feature on a flywheel-based machine.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in combining Hanoun’s known electronic tracking system with Sleamaker’s mechanical exercise machine, as it involved the application of a known technology for its intended purpose, yielding predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Sleamaker and Six-Pak - Claims 6-10 are obvious over Sleamaker in view of Six-Pak.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sleamaker (Patent 5,354,251) and Six-Pak (TuffStuff Fitness Six-Pak Trainer Owner’s Manual).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Sleamaker as the primary reference for the base machine and added Six-Pak to teach the limitations of dependent claims 6-10. Petitioner contended that Sleamaker’s frame constituted a “tower” as required by claim 6. For claims 7 and 8, which require four cables routed to upper-right, upper-left, lower-right, and lower-left locations, Petitioner argued that while Sleamaker taught a four-cable system, Six-Pak expressly disclosed this specific routing arrangement on its tower-style machine to allow for a variety of exercises.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA modifying Sleamaker’s machine to offer a greater range of exercises would be motivated to incorporate the known cable and pulley arrangements from a similar machine like Six-Pak. Routing cables to different positions on a frame was argued to be a simple and obvious design choice to achieve the predictable result of enabling different workout angles.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because the combination involved routine mechanical design—rearranging cables and pulleys in a known way to achieve a well-understood functional benefit.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Six-Pak, Ehrenfried, and Hanoun - Claims 1-19 are obvious over Six-Pak in view of Ehrenfried and Hanoun.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Six-Pak (TuffStuff Fitness Six-Pak Trainer Owner’s Manual), Ehrenfried (Patent 5,738,611), and Hanoun (Application # 2007/0232452).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that the claimed invention was obvious by starting with the Six-Pak machine (a four-cable tower machine using a weight stack) and substituting its resistance mechanism with the one taught in Ehrenfried. Ehrenfried disclosed an exercise machine with a magnetic flywheel resistance unit on a central shaft supporting multiple spools, and explicitly taught it as a substitute for weight-based systems. Hanoun was then added to provide the detailed electronic workout tracking features, as in Ground 1.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Six-Pak and Ehrenfried because flywheels and weight stacks were well-known, interchangeable resistance mechanisms in the field. There was strong market pressure to use flywheels for their known benefits over weight stacks, including lower cost, lighter weight, quieter operation, and improved safety. After making this predictable substitution, a POSITA would incorporate Hanoun’s electronics for the same reasons articulated in Ground 1: to meet consumer demand for performance tracking.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the primary modification was a simple substitution of one known type of resistance mechanism for another to obtain predictable advantages, followed by the integration of a standard electronic tracking system.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including Ground 3 (Sleamaker in view of Six-Pak and Hanoun). Furthermore, Grounds 5-8 added Kleinman (International Publication No. WO2008/152627) to the foregoing combinations to explicitly teach using a counterweight for cable rewinding, as required by claims 13 and 19.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-19 of Patent 9,403,047 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.