PTAB

IPR2019-00162

E-One, Inc. v. Oshkosh Corporation

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Single Rear Axle Quint Fire-Fighting Apparatus
  • Brief Description: The ’915 patent describes a “quint” configuration fire-fighting apparatus (including an aerial ladder, water tank, pump, ground ladders, and hose storage) built on a single rear axle chassis. The invention purports to achieve an extended horizontal reach of at least 90 feet and a vertical height of at least 95 feet, with a tip load of at least 750 pounds, capabilities previously associated with heavier, tandem-axle trucks.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Shapiro, Dana, and AAPA - Claims 1-7, 11-17, and 20 are obvious over Shapiro in combination with Dana and Applicant's Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Shapiro (a 2002 book on the history of aerial fire trucks), Dana (axle application guidelines published 2007-2012), and AAPA (admissions from the ’915 patent specification).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Shapiro disclosed all the basic components of a single-rear-axle quint, including models with 100-foot and 110-foot ladders. The AAPA from the ’915 patent itself established that it was a "traditional" and well-known method to increase a ladder’s reach and tip load by adding weight to the apparatus to serve as a counterbalance. The primary limiting factor for this traditional approach on a single-axle truck was the Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR). Dana disclosed commercially available, off-the-shelf single axles with higher GAWRs (e.g., 35,000 lbs.) that could support the additional weight required to achieve the claimed performance metrics.
    • Motivation to Combine: The primary motivation was a well-publicized 2011 proposal by the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) and Fire Apparatus Manufacturers Association (FAMA) encouraging states to increase the maximum allowable GAWR for emergency vehicles. Petitioner asserted this proposal would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to combine the known quint designs in Shapiro with the readily available, higher-capacity axles from Dana, using the traditional counterweighting method described in AAPA, to achieve the enhanced reach and load capacity claimed in the ’915 patent.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high and reasonable expectation of success. The underlying physics were simple and predictable: adding weight increases counterbalance, which allows for longer ladder extensions and higher tip loads. Combining known components (a single-axle quint, a high-capacity axle) to achieve a predictable improvement in performance was presented as a routine design choice, not an invention.

Ground 2: Obviousness over KME Manual, Shapiro, and Dana - Claims 1-7, 11-17, and 20 are obvious over KME Manual in combination with Shapiro and Dana.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: KME Manual (a 2012 vehicle manual for a 100-foot tractor-drawn aerial quint), Shapiro, and Dana.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended the KME Manual, which describes a tractor-drawn "tiller" fire truck, disclosed nearly all limitations of the independent claims. Specifically, it showed a quint apparatus with a 100-foot ladder capable of a horizontal reach over 95 feet. For the claimed tip load of 750 pounds, Petitioner argued that although the KME apparatus had a rated capacity of 500 lbs, it was designed to meet National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards, which required it to be capable of sustaining a static load of 1.5 times its rated capacity (1.5 x 500 = 750 lbs). Therefore, the KME Manual inherently disclosed the 750-pound tip load capability.
    • Motivation to Combine: For any limitations not explicitly met by the KME Manual (such as the specific axle types recited in claim 11), Petitioner argued a POSITA would have been motivated to look to standard, off-the-shelf components taught by references like Dana and Shapiro. Choosing a specific common axle type (e.g., a solid axle) from Dana to use in the known KME design was argued to be an obvious design choice to achieve a desired configuration.
    • Expectation of Success: As the KME Manual inherently disclosed an apparatus meeting the core performance claims (reach and tip load), a POSITA would have had a very high expectation of success. Any further modifications, such as selecting a specific axle type, would have been a routine implementation of a finite number of known, predictable solutions.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "single [front/rear] axle": Petitioner argued this term, used with the open-ended preamble "comprising," does not restrict the apparatus to only two total axles. Petitioner contended this construction is supported by the ’915 patent’s own disclosure of a "rear tiller fire apparatus" as an alternative embodiment, which would necessarily have more than two axles. This construction is critical to the patentability argument over the KME Manual, which describes a multi-axle tiller truck.
  • "the ladder assembly is configured to support a tip load of at least 750 pounds": Petitioner argued the term "tip load" should be construed as the rated capacity consistent with NFPA standards. Alternatively, if construed as the maximum sustainable load (Patent Owner's position), Petitioner argued the claims are still obvious. This argument is central to Ground 2, where the KME Manual’s 500-pound rated load is argued to inherently meet the 750-pound limitation due to the NFPA’s 1.5x safety factor requirement.
  • "chassis": Petitioner proposed construing "chassis" as the "supporting frame," while noting the Patent Owner proposed a broader definition including the engine and drivetrain. Petitioner argued the claims are unpatentable under either construction but maintained its narrower definition is more consistent with the patent's language.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests that the Board institute an inter partes review and cancel claims 1-7, 11-17, and 20 of the ’915 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.