PTAB

IPR2018-00853

NAVistar Inc v. Fatigue Fracture Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Process to Fracture Connecting Rods and the Like with Resonance-Fatigue
  • Brief Description: The ’915 patent discloses a process for fracturing parts, particularly engine connecting rods, into two pieces. The process involves applying cyclic fatigue forces to weaken the part along a predetermined plane, followed by applying a dynamic force to complete the separation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation and/or Obviousness over Brovold - Claims 1, 7, 9, and 10

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Brovold (Patent 4,754,906).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Brovold discloses every element of the challenged claims. Brovold teaches a hydraulic machine for fracturing connecting rods that uses both cyclic fatigue forces to initiate and propagate a crack and a large magnitude "separating force" (e.g., at least 30,000 psi) to complete the break. Petitioner asserted that Brovold's application of cyclic forces to weaken the rod meets the "fatigue force" limitation of claim 1, and its subsequent high-pressure separating force meets the "dynamic force" limitation. The forces are applied longitudinally and perpendicular to the fracture plane, as claimed.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): In its alternative obviousness argument, Petitioner contended that even if Brovold does not explicitly combine the fatigue and dynamic force steps in the precise manner claimed, it would have been obvious to do so. Brovold teaches using a servo-valve with feedback controls for "precise control for breaking the parts." A POSITA would have found it obvious to program Brovold’s existing control system to apply the final large separating force immediately after the fatigue cycles have sufficiently weakened the part, which is a predictable optimization to reduce cycle time.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as it would involve programming an already-disclosed servo-control system to sequence two forces (fatigue and fracture) that are both already taught by Brovold for the same purpose.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Brovold in view of Cavallo - Claims 1, 7, 9, and 10

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Brovold (Patent 4,754,906) and Cavallo (Patent 5,699,947).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that to the extent Brovold's large hydraulic separating force is not considered a "dynamic force," Cavallo supplies this teaching. Cavallo, which explicitly references Brovold as a "typical hydraulic parting procedure," improves upon it by adding a mechanically generated "impulsive" or "momentary" force to achieve a cleaner fracture. Petitioner argued that modifying Brovold’s process to incorporate the impulsive dynamic force taught by Cavallo would render the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Brovold and Cavallo because Cavallo is presented as a direct improvement on the hydraulic fracturing methods taught by Brovold. Cavallo teaches that adding a final impulsive force overcomes drawbacks of purely hydraulic systems, such as slower cycle times. A POSITA would therefore be motivated to incorporate Cavallo's impulsive force into Brovold’s fatigue-based system to gain the benefit of a faster, more efficient fracturing process.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because both patents describe hydraulically actuated systems for fracturing the same type of workpiece (connecting rods) along a predetermined plane. Integrating Cavallo's mechanical impact mechanism into Brovold’s hydraulic system would be a predictable combination of known elements.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Brovold in view of Bayliss and/or Becker - Claims 1, 7, 9, and 10

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Brovold (Patent 4,754,906), Bayliss (Patent 3,155,300), and/or Becker (Patent 5,320,265).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground argued that if Brovold is found to be missing certain features, Bayliss and Becker supply them. Specifically, Bayliss teaches using a longitudinal "pre-stress" force superimposed on fatigue forces to "accelerate the onset of fatigue fracture," directly mapping to the optional pre-stressing step in claim 1. Becker discloses numerous ways to generate an "impulsive force" or a "relatively slow acting force" for fracturing connecting rods, providing alternative teachings for the claimed "dynamic force."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Brovold with Bayliss to improve efficiency. Bayliss's teaching of using pre-stress to speed up fatigue failure would be an attractive and logical optimization for Brovold’s fatigue-based process, reducing manufacturing time and cost. A POSITA would combine Brovold with Becker to leverage Becker’s specific, well-defined mechanisms (e.g., fluid-powered accumulator, spring-loaded mass) for generating the final dynamic force, making Brovold’s system more robust or versatile.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in combining these references. Applying a pre-stress force as taught by Bayliss to Brovold’s workpiece is a straightforward application of a known principle to improve a known process. Similarly, substituting or implementing one of Becker's known impulsive force generators into Brovold's apparatus would be a predictable integration.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness grounds based on permutations of the primary references, including Cavallo in view of Brovold; Cavallo in view of Bayliss; and combinations of Brovold, Cavallo, Bayliss, and/or Becker.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Fatigue force": Petitioner argued this term means a force that causes mechanical fatigue by fluctuating between maximum and minimum values, consistent with its use in the specification and the applicant's statements during prosecution.
  • "Cyclic force": Petitioner contended this term further limits a "fatigue force" to one that cycles in a regular, repeating pattern.
  • "Dynamic force": Petitioner argued that this term is not explicitly defined but must, at a minimum, encompass the specification's two examples: an "impulsive force" and a "slow rate dynamic force." Petitioner asserted that the prior art references disclose forces meeting these examples.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 7, 9, and 10 of Patent 7,143,915 as unpatentable.