PTAB

IPR2019-01044

Precision Planting LLC v. Deere & Co

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Seeding Machine with Seed Delivery System
  • Brief Description: The ’663 patent describes an agricultural seeding machine row unit designed to improve seed placement accuracy, particularly at higher speeds. The invention uses a combination of a rotating seed meter, a loading wheel to transfer seeds from the meter, and a single “endless member” (e.g., a brush belt) that grips and controls the seeds during their descent into a furrow, thereby preventing uncontrolled movement and ensuring uniform spacing.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-8 are obvious over Hedderwick in view of Koning and Benac.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hedderwick (U.K. Published Application No. GB 2,057,835A), Koning (Patent 4,193,523), and Benac (French Published Application No. 2,414,288).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that all elements of the challenged claims were well-known and that combining these three prior art references renders the claims obvious. Hedderwick was asserted to be the primary reference, disclosing a "precision seeder" that includes the basic architecture of a seed meter (a vacuum disc) transferring seeds to an endless belt conveyor housed within a casing, addressing the same problem of uniform seed spacing as the ’663 patent. However, Hedderwick’s endless belt uses fins that create cells, which Petitioner argued still allows seeds to move and bounce, failing to provide the controlled descent of the ’663 patent.

      To remedy this deficiency, Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would incorporate the teachings of Koning. Koning discloses an endless member in the form of a driven brush belt with bristles that actively “hold” or grip seeds (e.g., potatoes, bulbs) to control their velocity and maintain precise spacing until the moment of discharge into the furrow. Petitioner contended that substituting Hedderwick’s finned belt with Koning’s superior brush belt is a simple, predictable modification.

      Furthermore, Petitioner argued that a POSITA would also incorporate the loading wheel taught by Benac. Benac addresses the common problem in vacuum seeders where seeds can jam in the meter’s orifices, leading to random and inaccurate release. Benac teaches using a “paddle wheel” (a loading wheel) that sweeps seeds from the metering disk to ensure their reliable removal and transfer. Petitioner argued that adding Benac’s paddle wheel to Hedderwick’s vacuum meter would be an obvious solution to improve the reliability of seed transfer into the endless member (Koning's brush belt). The combination of these three references allegedly teaches all limitations of independent claims 1, 4, and 6, including the seed meter, housing, endless member, and loading wheel. Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 were argued to be obvious as they recite additional features also taught by the prior art combination, such as a common drive (Benac), parallel planes of operation (Hedderwick), and the location of the loading wheel (Benac).

    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would combine these references because all three are in the same field of agricultural seeding, identify the same problem of suboptimal seed spacing, and provide known solutions for that problem. A POSITA would be motivated to improve the Hedderwick seeder by replacing its simple finned belt with Koning's brush belt to achieve finer control over seed descent, a benefit explicitly taught by Koning. Likewise, a POSITA would be motivated to add Benac’s paddle wheel to Hedderwick’s vacuum meter to solve the known problem of inconsistent seed release, a solution explicitly provided by Benac for vacuum-based systems. The combination represents fitting together known "pieces of a puzzle" to create a more effective and reliable seeding system.

    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. The combination involves applying known techniques (a brush belt for seed control, a paddle wheel for seed release) to a known base system (a seeder with a vacuum meter and conveyor). The components are straightforward mechanical systems, and their integration to achieve the predictable benefits of improved seed spacing and reliability would have been a routine design choice.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that no terms required explicit construction for the purposes of the IPR. However, it preemptively addressed the term "endless member." It was contended that the ’663 patent specification describes the "endless member" as a brush belt with bristles or a similar material that can "grip the seed." Petitioner argued that Koning's brush belt squarely meets this description. The petition further noted that should the Patent Owner assert a broader meaning for "endless member" to include other conveyors like flighted belts, the claims would still be obvious over Hedderwick and Benac alone, without the need for Koning's brush belt.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-8 of the ’663 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.