PTAB

IPR2019-01053

Precision Planting LLC v. Deere & Co

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Seeding Machine with Controlled Seed Descent
  • Brief Description: The ’031 patent discloses a seed planting system intended to improve the accuracy of seed placement, particularly at higher speeds over uneven terrain. The invention aims to prevent uncontrolled seed movement by using a combination of a movable "loading surface" to guide seeds from a seed meter and a seed delivery apparatus with an "endless member," such as a brush belt, that actively grips and controls the seeds during their descent into the furrow.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1-18 over Hedderwick, Benac, and Koning

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

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of the three prior art references discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. The asserted primary reference, Hedderwick, taught a "precision seeder" featuring a vacuum seed meter (disc 130) and a seed delivery apparatus comprising an endless belt (134) within an elongated housing or "casing" (137). This apparatus includes first and second openings for seed intake and discharge. However, Petitioner contended Hedderwick's system was deficient because its endless belt used "fins" (135) to create cells, which allowed seeds to move or bounce during transit, undermining precise placement.

      To meet the ’031 patent's claim for a movable "loading surface," Petitioner pointed to Benac. Benac disclosed a "paddle wheel" that contacts seeds on a vacuum meter disk and actively guides them toward the ground. This wheel was specifically designed to solve the known problem of seeds getting stuck in the meter's orifices, ensuring reliable and consistent seed release.

      To meet the claim for an "endless member" that grips the seed for controlled descent, Petitioner cited Koning. Koning taught an endless "brush belt" with bristles that "hold the potatoes or the like...till the moment that they leave the belt." This positive control ensures the "velocity of the potatoes in relation to each other is completely defined," directly addressing the uncontrolled movement problem present in Hedderwick.

      Petitioner argued that a POSITA would combine these teachings to create the claimed invention: Hedderwick's foundational seeder, modified to include Benac's paddle wheel as the loading surface and Koning's brush belt as the endless member. This combination allegedly satisfies all limitations of independent claim 1. The argument extended to independent claim 12, a method claim, by asserting that operating the combined apparatus would inherently perform the claimed method steps of releasing, contacting, guiding, receiving, and conveying the seed. Arguments for dependent claims followed logically; for example, claim 2's requirement for a "driven" loading surface was taught by Benac's driven paddle wheel, and claim 10's "bristle belt" was explicitly taught by Koning.

    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a clear motivation for a POSITA to combine these references. All three documents existed in the same technical field (agricultural seed planting), addressed the identical problem (improving seed spacing accuracy), and offered compatible, modular mechanical solutions. A POSITA starting with Hedderwick's system would recognize its limitation—uncontrolled seed movement on the finned belt. Seeking a solution, the POSITA would find Koning's brush belt, which was explicitly designed to "hold" seeds and provide superior control over their descent and velocity, a known benefit. The motivation to substitute Hedderwick's finned belt with Koning's brush belt was therefore to achieve this predictable improvement in spacing accuracy.

      Similarly, a POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Benac's paddle wheel into the Hedderwick system. Both references use vacuum seed meters, and Benac addresses a known failure mode of these meters—seeds jamming in the orifices. Benac's paddle wheel acts as a "sweep" to ensure seeds are reliably dislodged. A POSITA would have been motivated to add this feature to Hedderwick’s design to increase its operational reliability and consistency, a disclosed benefit in Benac. The combination was framed as a straightforward application of known techniques from the "POSITA's toolbox" to yield predictable results.

    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that success would have been reasonably expected. The proposed modifications involved integrating well-understood mechanical components. Combining a paddle wheel with a seed meter was a known technique, as was using a brush belt for conveying items. A POSITA would have understood how to physically integrate these components, such as by positioning Benac's paddle wheel at Hedderwick's seed release point to guide seeds into an apparatus fitted with Koning's brush belt, all using conventional engineering principles.

    • Key Aspects: Petitioner emphasized that the primary reference, Hedderwick, was not cited during the prosecution of the ’031 patent. Furthermore, neither Benac nor Koning were substantively analyzed by the Examiner, meaning the proposed combination represented a new line of argument not previously considered by the USPTO.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-18 of Patent 9,861,031 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.