PTAB

IPR2018-01201

Wirtgen America Inc v. Caterpillar Paving Products Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Articulation Apparatus for a Work Machine
  • Brief Description: The ’693 patent discloses a work machine, such as a road milling machine, featuring an articulation apparatus for a wheel or track. The apparatus is designed to move the wheel between a projecting position for enhanced stability and a retracted position for operating close to obstacles, using a first actuator to pivot a support arm and a second actuator to rotate the wheel.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Volpe and Ulrich - Claims 1, 17-19, 24, and 25 are obvious over the Volpe Manual in view of Ulrich.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Volpe Manual (Volpe SF 100 T4 Operating Instruction Book) and Ulrich (Patent 3,633,292).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the Volpe Manual discloses a cold planer machine with all elements of claim 1 except for the actuators. Volpe’s machine featured a single support arm that an operator must manually pivot to move a rear wheel between a projecting and a retracted position, while also manually rotating the wheel to maintain its orientation. Petitioner asserted that Ulrich teaches the missing elements: automating a similar pivoting motion of a support arm using a first actuator (hydraulic cylinder 22) and controlling the orientation of the track using a second actuator (hydraulic cylinder 24).
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Ulrich’s automation with Volpe’s machine to overcome the known disadvantages of manual operation. Petitioner contended that the manual process described in Volpe was inefficient, physically demanding, and unsafe for the operator, providing a strong motivation to implement a known, automated solution like that taught by Ulrich.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. Automating swing legs with hydraulic actuators was a well-known technique to solve a known problem. Furthermore, the Volpe machine already included a hydraulic system, which would make the integration of Ulrich's hydraulic actuators predictable and straightforward.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Volpe, Ulrich, and Bitelli ’088 - Claims 15, 16, 26, 27, 36, and 38 are obvious over the Volpe Manual in view of Ulrich and Bitelli ’088.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Volpe Manual, Ulrich (Patent 3,633,292), and Bitelli ’088 (EP 1001088A2).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the combination of Volpe and Ulrich and adds teachings for a locking mechanism as recited in claims 15, 16, and related method claims. While the Volpe Manual taught a manual pin-and-hole locking system, Bitelli ’088 discloses an automated locking mechanism. Specifically, Bitelli ’088 taught a support arm housing a hydraulic actuator with a stem that engages holes in the machine frame to automatically lock the arm in both its projected and retracted positions.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA motivated to automate the pivoting function of the Volpe machine would likewise be motivated to automate its manual locking mechanism for the same reasons of improving operator efficiency and safety. An automated lock, as taught by Bitelli ’088, also serves the known purpose of relieving stress on the primary pivoting actuators when the arm is stationary, making it a desirable feature.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have yielded predictable results. The Volpe machine already incorporated the necessary underlying features—a hydraulic system and physical holes for locking—making the integration of Bitelli ’088’s automated hydraulic pin-locking system a straightforward application of a known technology to a known device.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Volpe, Ulrich, and Busley - Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 19 are obvious over the Volpe Manual in view of Ulrich and Busley.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Volpe Manual, Ulrich (Patent 3,633,292), and Busley (WO 97/42377).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses dependent claims reciting the specific connection of the second (steering) actuator. Claim 2 requires the second actuator to be connected between the support arm and the lifting column. Petitioner argued that while Ulrich teaches a steering actuator, Busley specifically teaches how to connect such an actuator to a height-adjustable lifting column. Busley discloses a steering cylinder connected via a link ring that is in rotary engagement with the lifting column, ensuring a constant axial position during vertical movement.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing Ulrich’s steering actuator onto the Volpe machine, which features height-adjustable lifting columns, would need to account for this vertical movement. Busley provided a known, elegant solution to this exact problem, making it a natural and logical modification for the POSITA to incorporate.
    • Expectation of Success: The lifting column designs in Busley and the Volpe Manual were sufficiently similar that a POSITA would have a high degree of confidence in successfully adapting Busley’s link-ring steering connection. This modification would improve the Volpe machine in a predictable way.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claim 28 based on Volpe, Ulrich, and Bitelli ’037. This ground added the teaching from Bitelli ’037 of coordinating the rear wheel's steering with the front wheels' steering using an electronic control unit to improve the machine's turning radius and reduce wear on tracks.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 15-19, 24-28, 36, and 38 of the ’693 patent as unpatentable.