PTAB

IPR2018-00504

Blasters, Inc. v. Waterblasting LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Cleaning System for Removing Coatings from a Hard Surface
  • Brief Description: The ’116 patent discloses a cleaning system comprising a small, self-propelled tractor tethered to a larger support truck. The truck supplies high-pressure liquid to a blast head on the tractor for surface cleaning and provides a vacuum system for removing spent liquid and debris.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, and 10 are obvious over Jones in view of Breither and NLB.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Jones (Patent 3,902,219), Breither (Patent 3,011,206), and NLB (a 2004 StripeJet™ brochure).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Jones taught the fundamental system of a motorized utility vehicle with a cleaning head tethered to a service truck containing pumps and a vacuum tank. However, Jones relied on an external water source. Breither was cited for teaching a truck-mounted, partitioned tank containing both a liquid reservoir and a sump, enabling a self-contained water supply and recycling capability. NLB was cited for its StripeJet™ system, which used "ultra-high-pressure" (up to 40,000 psi) components specifically for "coating removal." Petitioner asserted that the combination of these references taught all limitations of independent claim 1, including a mobile frame (the truck chassis), a liquid reservoir, a high-pressure pump, a mobile blast head on a tractor, and a waste removal system with a sump and vacuum pump.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine Jones with Breither to make the cleaning system portable and independent of an external water supply, a stated object of Jones. A POSA would then incorporate NLB's well-known, high-power components to upgrade the combined system's performance, expanding its capabilities from general cleaning to the more demanding application of coating removal.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved the simple substitution of known elements (e.g., replacing Jones’s vacuum tank with Breither’s partitioned tank, upgrading pumps and nozzles with those from NLB) to perform their known functions, leading to predictable results.

Ground 2: Claims 1-4 and 10 are obvious over Clemons in view of NLB.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Clemons (Patent 6,381,801) and NLB (a 2004 StripeJet™ brochure).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Clemons taught a self-contained cleaning vehicle with an onboard liquid delivery system (tank, pump) and a vacuum recovery system. However, Clemons described a large, single vehicle, which lacked maneuverability in tight spaces. NLB taught a compact, maneuverable tractor with a blast head specifically designed for cleaning areas with limited access. The combination, Petitioner argued, resulted in the claimed invention: NLB's compact tractor (the "tractor" with the "mobile blast head") tethered to Clemons's larger truck, which provides the support functions (the "mobile frame" with the reservoir, pump, and sump).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would have been motivated to improve the Clemons system by incorporating the compact, maneuverable tractor from NLB. This would allow the system to clean areas with limited access (e.g., parking garages) that the large Clemons vehicle could not, while still leveraging the robust support systems of the Clemons truck.
    • Expectation of Success: The proposed combination was a simple tethering of two known, complementary systems. A POSA would expect that connecting the hoses from NLB's tractor to the corresponding pumps and tanks on Clemons's truck would function as intended without undue experimentation.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges to address dependent claims. Claims 3 and 4 were challenged over Jones/Breither/NLB in further view of Herhold (Patent 6,889,914), which taught a shroud for the blast head. Claims 5 and 6 were challenged over that same combination in further view of Schrunk (Patent 5,494,393), which taught a system for transporting a utility vehicle transversely on a truck bed using a ramp. A similar ground adding Schrunk to the Clemons/NLB combination was also presented against claims 5 and 6.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "high pressure": Petitioner argued this term should not be limited to the 25,000-40,000 psi range disclosed in the specification, as this range was not recited in the claims. Instead, it should be construed broadly according to its dictionary definition as "pressures higher than normal, especially higher than atmospheric pressure." This broad construction would allow prior art like Jones, which disclosed pressures of 200 psi, to meet the limitation.
  • "mobile frame": Petitioner noted a conflict where claim 1 requires the mobile frame to be part of a truck, while the specification states the mobile frame is a self-propelled tractor. Petitioner argued a POSA would resolve this ambiguity by construing "mobile frame" as the base frame or chassis of the truck, a construction that is met by the truck frames in Jones and Clemons.
  • "articulating link": Petitioner argued this term should be construed broadly as "a connecting structure that connects two parts in such a way as to permit relative movement." This construction allowed Petitioner to map the limitation onto the swivel joints disclosed in the prior art, such as the one in Jones that permitted the cleaning head to pivot horizontally and vertically.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-6 and 10 as unpatentable.