PTAB

IPR2019-01549

Foster Miller Inc v. FLIR Detection Inc

Key Events

Petition

Title: Articulated Tracked Vehicle
Brief Description: The ’296 patent discloses a remote-controlled, articulated tracked vehicle designed for reconnaissance, bomb disposal, and security patrols. The invention centers on a method for climbing a series of stairs using a main tracked chassis and pivoting forward arms that can extend the vehicle's wheelbase for stability.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Jensen (Patent 3,869,011).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Jensen, which discloses a stair-climbing vehicle for transporting loads, teaches all limitations of independent claim 1. Jensen describes a vehicle with main tracks and pivoting auxiliary tracks that are used to ascend stairs. Petitioner asserted that Jensen’s disclosure of a vehicle ascending a staircase, with its forward arms raised higher than the first stair and then lowered to contact it, meets the core method steps. For dependent claims, Petitioner contended that maintaining a constant center of gravity (claims 2-3) is an inherent result of Jensen’s vehicle maintaining a stable, planar configuration during ascent, a concept a POSITA would understand from basic principles of physics. The extended track base in Jensen was argued to inherently cover at least two step spans (claim 6) and form a planar base (claim 7).
- Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that a POSITA would have a high expectation of success in applying Jensen's teachings, as the reference explicitly describes a functional stair-climbing vehicle. The arguments for dependent claims relied on predictable results from known physics principles applied to the disclosed vehicle structure.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Iwamoto (Patent 4,483,407).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Iwamoto, which discloses a remote-controlled vehicle with endless tracks "suited for going up stairs," renders claims 1-9 obvious. Iwamoto's method involves swinging pivoting arms to lift auxiliary wheels onto the first step, driving the main tracks forward, and then pivoting the arms rearward to extend the track base into an "inclined common plane" for ascending the stairs, mapping to the steps of claim 1. For claims 2-4 concerning center of gravity and stability, Petitioner argued that Iwamoto implicitly teaches these limitations because its vehicle must maintain stability to climb stairs without toppling, and its configuration inherently maintains the center of gravity within the base of support. For independent claim 8, which recites a method for inverting the vehicle, Petitioner argued that Iwamoto’s disclosure of a pivoting arm with a 360-degree range of motion would have made it obvious to a POSITA that the arm could be pivoted past a stable point, causing the vehicle to invert and then right itself, as claimed.
- Expectation of Success: As Iwamoto describes a functional stair-climbing robot, a POSITA would expect the disclosed methods to work as intended. The inversion method of claim 8 was presented as an obvious extension of the disclosed 360-degree arm movement, with a predictable outcome.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Clement (Patent 4,709,773) and Jensen (Patent 3,869,011).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Clement discloses a variable-geometry tracked vehicle capable of climbing stairs but does so in an inefficient, one-stair-at-a-time method. Clement teaches the core steps of raising a forward tracked body, approaching a stair, driving forward, and extending the track base into a planar configuration to surmount a single step. Petitioner contended that this step-by-step process is inefficient. Jensen, in contrast, teaches using a similar planar configuration to ascend an entire series of stairs continuously.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Clement and Jensen to improve the efficiency of Clement's design. Recognizing the inefficiency of Clement's one-stair-at-a-time method, a POSITA would look to known solutions for continuous stair climbing. Jensen provides such a solution by teaching how to scale a vehicle with a similar planar track configuration to span multiple steps, allowing for stable and continuous ascent.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references disclose vehicles that use the same fundamental planar configuration to climb stairs. The combination merely involves scaling the vehicle disclosed in Clement, as taught by Jensen, to enable it to traverse multiple stairs continuously rather than just one.

Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be improper. Although the Examiner considered Clement during prosecution, it was only applied on its own. The petition presented a new combination of Clement with Jensen, a previously unconsidered reference that discloses key features, such as continuous ascent over a series of stairs, that were central to the patent’s allowance.

Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-9 of the ’296 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.