PTAB

IPR2018-01632

InTimidator Inc v. Bad Boy Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Suspension System for a Riding Mower
  • Brief Description: The ’386 patent discloses a rear suspension system for a riding lawn mower. The system features two hydraulic transaxles, each pivotally secured to the mower's frame and supported by at least one vibration pillow to dampen movement.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1-2 over Melone

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Melone (Patent 9,161,490).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that if the Patent Owner’s broad claim construction of "vibration pillow" as any "compressible suspension component" is applied, then Melone anticipates claims 1 and 2. Melone disclosed a riding mower with all elements of claim 1, including a frame, driven wheels, and two hydrostatic transaxles mounted on a pivoting subframe beneath the main frame. Crucially, Melone’s transaxles were supported by coil springs, which Petitioner asserted met the Patent Owner’s broad definition of "pillows." Melone also showed the transaxle proximate to the driven wheel, anticipating claim 2.
    • Key Aspects: This ground was presented as a direct consequence of the Patent Owner's own proposed claim construction in related litigation.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1-2 over Melone in view of Foster

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Melone (Patent 9,161,490) and Foster (Patent 7,708,292).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was asserted as an alternative if Petitioner's narrower construction of "vibration pillow" (excluding springs) was adopted. Petitioner contended Melone disclosed all limitations of claims 1 and 2 except for the "vibration pillows." Foster, which relates to a similar mower suspension system, explicitly taught the use of resilient, elastomeric "pillows" to dampen vibration, which were structurally and functionally identical to those described in the ’386 patent. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have recognized Foster’s pillows as a direct substitute for Melone’s coil springs.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Melone and Foster to improve the suspension system of Melone’s mower. Foster provided a known, viable, and low-cost alternative for providing suspension, and substituting Foster's pillows for Melone's springs was presented as a trivial design choice to achieve a predictable result.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as both references addressed suspension in riding mowers, and replacing one type of dampening component (a spring) with another (an elastomeric pillow) was a well-understood practice in the field.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 3, 4, 8, and 9 over Melone in view of Foster

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Melone (Patent 9,161,490) and Foster (Patent 7,708,292).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground extended the combination of Melone and Foster to the dependent claims. Claim 3 required that each transaxle be secured to the frame by a "rod" that permits pivoting. While Melone used separate coaxial pivots, Foster disclosed a suspension cage secured to the frame by a single pivot "rod" (pin 74). The combination would therefore teach a pivoting transaxle secured by a rod. Claim 4’s limitation of the rod spanning between downwardly depending tabs was also met by Foster’s disclosure of its pivot pin passing through apertures in the frame rails.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was driven by solving the common problems of vehicle control and operator comfort in lawn mowers. A POSITA would look to both Melone for its use of transaxles and Foster for its simple and cost-effective rod-based pivoting mechanism. Combining the known elements from these analogous systems would have been a natural step in designing an improved suspension.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying conventional design and assembly techniques using well-known mechanical components. Modifying Melone’s pivot mechanism with Foster’s rod-based pivot or mounting Melone’s transaxle in Foster’s suspension cage were described as foreseeable modifications that would yield the predictable result of a pivoting transaxle dampened by pillows.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner argued that significant disputes over claim terms drove the alternative unpatentability grounds.

  • "Vibration Pillow": This was the most critical dispute.
    • Petitioner proposed a narrow construction: "a resilient material that completely encloses a material other than air...but does not exert a force that pushes the driven wheel downwardly," explicitly excluding springs and shock absorbers based on the prosecution history of an incorporated patent.
    • Petitioner noted the Patent Owner advocated for a broad construction of "compressible suspension component," which would include the coil springs found in Melone.
  • "Hydraulic Transaxle": Petitioner argued for a construction including both integrated and non-integrated transaxles, consistent with the prosecution history where the examiner relied on a reference with non-integrated transaxles.
  • "Inner Pivot Rod": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "a pivot rod extending through the inside of the housing of the hydraulic transaxle," based on the only embodiment disclosed in the ’386 patent.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Petitioner dedicated a substantial portion of the petition to identifying and correcting perceived errors and inconsistencies between the written description and figures of the ’386 patent. It argued that key components, such as the "downwardly depending frame flanges 60," were misidentified in the figures and that the actual structure shown (which Petitioner re-labeled as "bottom plate 101") was not part of the frame at all. Petitioner contended that if the specification were read literally, the suspension system would be inoperable, thus requiring a POSITA to correct these errors by referencing the figures.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-4, 8, and 9 of Patent 9,730,386 as unpatentable.