PTAB

IPR2019-01052

Precision Planting LLC v. Deere & Co

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Seed Planting Improvement
  • Brief Description: The ’429 patent discloses an agricultural row unit for a seeding machine that aims to improve seed spacing accuracy. The system uses a seed meter to singulate seeds and a seed delivery apparatus with an "endless member," such as a bristle belt, that is positioned to sweep across the seed meter, capture the seeds, and provide a controlled descent to the furrow, minimizing uncontrolled movement.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Holdt and Koning - Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7 are obvious over Holdt in view of Koning.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Holdt (German Patent No. DE2826658A1) and Koning (Patent 4,193,523).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Holdt disclosed the core components of a row unit for a seeding machine, including a vacuum seed metering member (a "singularizing cylinder") with apertures, movable to convey seed from a reservoir, and a housing for the meter. Holdt’s system used a "cellular belt" as a seed delivery apparatus that extended into the meter housing to retrieve seeds directly from the cylinder’s apertures. Petitioner asserted that Koning disclosed the claimed "endless member," teaching a driven brush belt with bristles that "hold" seeds to ensure their velocity is defined and a regular distribution in the furrow is achieved. The combination of Holdt’s row unit architecture with Koning’s bristle belt would, according to Petitioner, result in a system meeting all limitations of independent claim 1.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that both Holdt and Koning addressed the same problem in agricultural seed planting: achieving uniform seed spacing by controlling the movement of seeds during delivery. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would recognize that Holdt’s cellular belt, which forms cells where seeds can bounce, offers inferior seed control compared to Koning’s brush belt, which actively grips the seeds. Therefore, a POSITA would combine the teachings by substituting Koning's superior brush belt for Holdt's cellular belt to achieve the known benefit of finer control over seed movement and improved spacing.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that this combination represented a simple substitution of one known conveyor type (a brush belt) for another (a cellular belt) in a predictable mechanical system. A POSITA would have understood how to implement this change and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving more precise seed placement, as explicitly taught by Koning.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Holdt, Koning, and Holly - Claims 3, 8-9, and 13-20 are obvious over Holdt in view of Koning and Holly.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Holdt (German Patent No. DE2826658A1), Koning (Patent 4,193,523), and Holly (Application # 2006/0278726A1).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Holdt and Koning to address claim limitations requiring the endless member to contact the seed face (claim 3) or to perform a sweeping action (claim 8). Petitioner argued that while the Holdt/Koning combination taught an endless member moving across the seed meter, the reference Holly was added to explicitly teach using a brush to contact a seed meter face to dislodge seeds. Holly disclosed a rotating brush used to sweep seeds from a vacuum drum by making contact with the drum’s surface.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, having combined Holdt and Koning, would look to known techniques for ensuring effective seed transfer from a vacuum meter to the delivery belt. Petitioner asserted that Holly provided an express teaching that seeds adhered to a vacuum meter can be effectively removed by using a brush that contacts the meter’s surface. Applying this known technique to the Holdt/Koning system would ensure that seeds are reliably transferred from Holdt's meter into the bristles of Koning's belt.
    • Expectation of Success: This was presented as a straightforward application of a known technique (using a brush to physically sweep seeds off a vacuum plate) to a known system to solve a predictable problem (ensuring seed transfer). The mechanical structures were simple and would yield predictable results.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges for claims 10 and 11. To invalidate claim 10, Sauder (Patent 6,681,706) was added to the Holdt/Koning/Holly combination for its teaching of driving a seed meter independently from the seed conveyor. To invalidate claim 11, Hanson (Patent 4,023,509) was added for its teaching of releasing seeds from a vacuum meter by removing the air pressure differential as the apertures rotate away from the vacuum source.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 of the ’429 patent as unpatentable.