PTAB

IPR2019-01051

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 ’924 patent relates to a seed delivery apparatus for agricultural planters designed to improve planting accuracy. The system uses an "endless member," such as a brush belt, to capture seeds from a meter and provide a "controlled descent" into a furrow, thereby minimizing uncontrolled seed movement caused by gravity and field dynamics to improve final seed spacing.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

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

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hedderwick (UK Published Application No. GB 2,057,835 A) and Koning (Patent 4,193,523).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hedderwick taught the foundational seed delivery system, comprising a seed meter, an elongated housing with intake and discharge openings, and an endless belt to convey seeds from the meter to the ground. Petitioner contended, however, that Hedderwick’s use of a finned belt allowed for undesirable seed movement within cells, failing to fully solve the problem of inconsistent seed spacing. Petitioner asserted that Koning taught the direct solution to this known problem by disclosing an endless brush belt with bristles that "hold" seeds securely until they are released into the furrow. Petitioner mapped that substituting Koning’s brush belt into Hedderwick’s apparatus would result in a system where the endless member is "shaped to maintain contact with a top of each seed" (as required by independent claim 1) and is "movable to push the seed" (as required by independent claim 8). Petitioner further detailed how the combined teachings disclosed the limitations of all challenged dependent claims, including the use of rotatable members (taught by both references), a substantially straight path for the belt, and the acceleration of seeds as the belt moves around the lower pulley.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to combine the references because both are in the same field of agricultural planting and explicitly address the same problem of achieving uniform seed spacing. A POSITA would recognize the limitations of Hedderwick's finned belt (i.e., allowing seeds to bounce) and would look to known solutions. Petitioner argued that Koning’s brush belt was a well-known tool for providing superior seed control and would have been seen as a simple, advantageous replacement for Hedderwick's finned belt to achieve the predictable result of finer, more consistent seed placement.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that incorporating Koning's brush belt into Hedderwick's apparatus was a simple mechanical substitution of one known component for another to perform its established function. As both references describe straightforward mechanical systems, a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in combining them to achieve improved performance.
    • Key Aspects: The central thrust of the argument was that applying Koning's brush belt—a known tool from the POSITA's toolbox—to Hedderwick's system was a simple, predictable design choice to solve a known problem, not an inventive act.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Petitioner’s central technical contention was that different seed conveyor belt types, including the finned belt of Hedderwick and the brush belt of Koning, were well-known alternatives in the POSITA's toolbox for controlling seed delivery. The argument posited that the ’924 patent’s claimed invention was not an inventive leap but rather an obvious design choice of substituting a more effective component (Koning's brush belt) for a less effective one (Hedderwick's finned belt) to achieve the known and desired benefit of improved seed spacing control. This interchangeability of known components to achieve a predictable result was presented as a classic case of obviousness.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review of claims 1-20 of the ’924 patent and cancellation of those claims as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.