PTAB

IPR2019-01048

Precision Planting LLC v. Deere & Co

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Seed Delivery Apparatus
  • Brief Description: The ’906 patent relates to an agricultural seed planting system designed to improve planting accuracy. The system uses a seed delivery apparatus with an "endless member," such as a brush belt with bristles, to grip and control the descent of individual seeds from a seed meter to a furrow in the soil, purportedly making the planting process less susceptible to variations caused by field dynamics and high speeds. A key feature is the acceleration of the seed by the endless member as it travels around a lower pulley, ensuring a controlled discharge velocity to minimize bouncing and improve seed spacing.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-20 are obvious over Hedderwick in view of Koning.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hedderwick (UK Published Application GB 2,057,835A) and Koning (Patent 4,193,523).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Hedderwick and Koning taught all limitations of the challenged claims. Hedderwick disclosed the foundational structure of a precision seeder, including a seed meter, an elongated housing (casing 137), an endless belt (134) movable within the housing, and a system of pulleys (sprockets 132, 152) for conveying seeds from a first opening to a second, lower discharge opening. However, Hedderwick's belt used fins, which Petitioner contended did not completely control seed movement, allowing seeds to shift due to gravity. Koning, in the same field, taught an improved endless member—a driven belt with brush hairs—that explicitly addressed this problem by holding seeds securely ("till the very last moment") to ensure a "completely defined" velocity and regular distribution in the furrow.
    • Petitioner asserted that substituting Koning's brush belt for Hedderwick's finned belt would result in the claimed invention. The combined system would have an elongated housing (Hedderwick) containing an endless member with bristles (Koning) positioned to receive seeds. As this brush belt travels along a straight path within the housing (from driven sprocket 132 to idler sprocket 152), it would convey the seed at a first velocity. As the belt travels around the lower idler sprocket (152) of Hedderwick's system, the distal ends of the bristles holding the seed would travel a greater distance than the base of the belt, necessarily accelerating the seed to a second, faster velocity before it is discharged, as required by independent claims 1, 8, and 15. The arguments for dependent claims were based on features also disclosed in the combination, such as the use of two rotatable members (Hedderwick's sprockets) and the flexing of the bristles (an inherent property of Koning's brush belt) to receive and eject seeds.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine Hedderwick and Koning to solve a known problem. Both references addressed the challenge of achieving uniform seed spacing in agricultural planters. A POSITA reviewing Hedderwick's system would recognize that its finned belt allowed for undesirable seed movement. Seeking a solution, they would have looked to known techniques in the art, such as the brush belt taught by Koning, which explicitly disclosed the benefit of superior seed control. Petitioner asserted that Koning's brush belt was a known tool in the "POSITA's toolbox" and its substitution into Hedderwick's otherwise complete system was a simple, predictable design choice to achieve the recognized goal of finer seed control.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved straightforward mechanical systems. The integration of Koning's known brush belt component into Hedderwick's known delivery apparatus framework would yield only predictable results, namely the improved seed control explicitly taught by Koning.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent 9,686,906 as unpatentable.