PTAB

IPR2018-01414

Ditec Solutions, LLC v. WOBBLEWORKS, INC.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: HAND-HELD THREE-DIMENSIONAL DRAWING DEVICE
  • Brief Description: The ’444 patent relates to a hand-held, three-dimensional (3D) drawing device. The device uses a motor coupled to a gear train to engage and advance a strand of thermoplastic feed stock through a heated nozzle assembly, allowing a user to draw 3D objects in free space.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Di Miceli - Claims 1-20 are obvious over Di Miceli under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Di Miceli (Application # 2010/0147465).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Di Miceli, which discloses a "hand welding extruder," teaches all limitations of the challenged claims. Independent claim 1 recites a handheld drawing device with a pen-like housing, feed/cooling ports, actuators, a motor, gear train, and nozzle assembly. Petitioner contended that Di Miceli’s bar-shaped housing, comprising a front welding segment and a rear grab handle, corresponds to the claimed housing. The internal motor, gearbox, and extruder worm of Di Miceli were mapped to the claimed motor, gear train, and extruder. Petitioner asserted that Di Miceli’s disclosure of "at least one operating element" in the form of a switch or selector for the motor inherently suggests the use of multiple actuators. Further, a "cooled guard tube" that allows cold air to flow over the device was argued to teach the claimed cooling port. The arguments for independent claim 18 were substantively similar. For dependent claims, Petitioner argued Di Miceli either explicitly taught the limitations or rendered them obvious. For example, a "mounting tube" (claim 2) was identified in Di Miceli's figures, and a fan (claim 16) was presented as an obvious replacement for Di Miceli’s supplied cold air source.
    • Motivation to Combine: As this is a single-reference ground, the argument focused on why a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would have viewed Di Miceli as teaching the claimed invention. Petitioner argued that a POSA would have immediately understood that Di Miceli's hand welding extruder, which functions by depositing lines of thermoplastic material, is structurally capable of and suitable for use as a 3D drawing device. For claimed features not explicitly detailed in Di Miceli (e.g., a motor-reversing function or multi-speed extrusion), Petitioner asserted it would have been obvious to modify the device using a finite number of well-known design options to improve functionality, such as adding the ability to withdraw filament or providing more granular speed control.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing any minor modifications to Di Miceli’s device. These modifications, such as substituting switches with buttons, adding a second actuator for two-speed control, or implementing a motor-reversing feature, were described as simple applications of common, well-understood techniques in handheld power tools that would yield predictable and successful results.
    • Key Aspects: A critical aspect of the petition is that the primary prior art reference, Di Miceli, was disclosed to the USPTO during prosecution of the ’444 patent but was never substantively analyzed, discussed, or applied by the examiner. Petitioner argued this meant its pertinent teachings were not properly considered on the record.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • “upper housing” and “lower housing”: Petitioner proposed that these terms, recited in dependent claim 3, should be construed to mean “distinct components of the housing that together form an internal volume and whose orientation is not bound by the ordinary gravitational frame of reference.” This construction was central to Petitioner's argument that Di Miceli’s longitudinally arranged “front welding segment 7” and “rear grab handle 8” satisfy these claim limitations, countering a potentially narrow interpretation that would require a vertical top/bottom orientation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’444 patent as unpatentable.