PTAB

IPR2018-01365

Special Tactical Services LLC v. HaGEDorn Mark

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Mounting Assembly for a Firearm
  • Brief Description: The ’561 patent describes a non-recoil reducing firearm mounting assembly, also known as a "hard mount" or "bufferless mount." The assembly comprises a carriage configured to mount a shield, a pintle for rotatably coupling the assembly to a support structure, and a cradle pivotably coupled to the carriage to receive a firearm.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-18 are obvious over TM MK 64 in view of TM MK 93.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: TM MK 64 (Technical Manual for MK 64 Machine Gun Mount) and TM MK 93 (Technical Manual for MK 93 Small Arms Machine Gun Mounts).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of TM MK 64 and TM MK 93 teaches every limitation of the challenged claims, particularly those the Examiner relied upon for allowance during prosecution. Petitioner asserted that both references, being U.S. military technical manuals, disclose the fundamental combination of a firearm mounting assembly having a carriage configured to mount a shield, a pintle for connecting to a support structure, and a cradle for holding a firearm. More specifically, Petitioner contended that TM MK 64 alone discloses the detailed mechanical features of the cradle recited in independent claim 1, including a planar adaptor plate, a pintle block secured to the plate, a pintle socket, a pintle bushing within the socket, a pin bore extending through the block and bushing, and a quick release pin mechanism. The arguments for independent claims 12 and 16, which recite similar core components with minor structural variations, relied on the same teachings. Petitioner extended this reasoning to all dependent claims, mapping their respective features (e.g., support bosses, retaining pins, specific dimensions) to explicit disclosures in the TM MK 64 and TM MK 93 manuals.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been strongly motivated to combine the teachings of TM MK 64 and TM MK 93. Both references originate from the identical technical field of military machine gun mounts, describe functionally similar cradle and carriage assemblies, and are intended for use with the same types of firearms (e.g., M2 and MK19 machine guns). The combination was presented as a predictable and logical step for a POSITA seeking to implement a standard firearm mounting system.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in combining the references. The components described in both manuals are standard, interoperable parts within military firearm systems, and combining their features would have involved applying known design principles with predictable results.
    • Key Aspects: The core of Petitioner's argument was that the asserted prior art, which was not before the Examiner during prosecution, expressly teaches the very limitations that formed the basis for allowance. Petitioner quoted the Examiner's reasons for allowance and systematically mapped each recited feature to the prior art manuals.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed constructions for several key terms based on their plain and ordinary meaning in the context of the ’561 patent specification, which were central to mapping the prior art.
  • "Carriage": Argued to be a component of the mounting assembly configured to mount a shield assembly. This construction allowed Petitioner to map the term to the shield-supporting structures in TM MK 64 and TM MK 93.
  • "Pintle": Argued to be a component that mounts the entire assembly to a support structure. This broad functional definition was used to identify the corresponding mounting pins in the prior art.
  • "Cradle": Argued to be a non-recoil reducing component configured to receive a firearm. This construction aligned with the "hard mount" nature of the systems disclosed in both the patent and the prior art manuals.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests that the Board institute an inter partes review and cancel claims 1-18 of the ’561 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.