PTAB

IPR2020-00424

Sig Sauer Inc v. NST Global LLC

Title: Forearm-Gripping Stabilizing Attachment for a Handgun
Brief Description: The ’021 patent relates to a stabilizing attachment for a handgun that secures to the rearward end of the weapon. The device comprises a body with a longitudinal passage for receiving a support structure (e.g., a buffer tube), at least one flap for gripping a user's forearm, and a strap to secure the attachment to the user's arm for improved stability.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Forjot (French Patent No. 899,565).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Forjot, a reference not considered during prosecution, discloses nearly all key limitations of the independent claims. Forjot teaches a forearm-gripping "cuff" (the body) attached to a "tube" (the support structure) extending from a pistol's rear. This cuff features flaps to grip the arm and a passage for the tube that Petitioner asserted extends entirely through the body. For dependent claims 2 and 4, Petitioner argued that Forjot’s teaching that the cuff has "certain elasticity" would have suggested the use of known elastomeric materials to a POSITA.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner contended that the only element not explicitly disclosed in Forjot is a strap. Adding a strap would have been an obvious modification based on the general knowledge of a POSITA. The motivation arises directly from Forjot's stated goal of making the weapon "integral with the arm"; a POSITA would combine Forjot’s cuff with a well-known securing element (a strap) for its known purpose to predictably enhance this connection.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in adding a strap, as it involves a simple, common mechanical fastening technique used for centuries in the firearms field to achieve a more secure fit.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Forjot (French Patent No. 899,565), Baricos (Patent 5,852,253).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground relied on the same mapping of Forjot as in Ground 1 for the body, passage, and flap limitations. Baricos was introduced to explicitly teach the claimed strap element, as it discloses a firearm support system with a "forearm cradle" (cradle 230) secured to a user's arm by an associated "strap" (strap 232).
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Forjot with Baricos because both references share the common goal of stabilizing a firearm against a user's arm. Seeing the effective use of a strap in Baricos to secure a similar cradle-like structure, a POSITA would be motivated to apply that known technique to Forjot’s cuff to achieve a more secure attachment, which is an explicit goal of Forjot.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Forjot (French Patent No. 899,565), Morgan (Patent 6,016,620).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground used Morgan to supply the teachings for the strap element. Morgan discloses an arm and handgun support apparatus that uses multiple "straps" (straps 142) with a "forearm support" (support 138) to steady the aim of a handgun user. Morgan also discloses that its support structure is made of plastic, further supporting the obviousness of using elastomeric materials for the flaps.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to combine these references as they address the identical problem of steadying a handgun for better aim. Petitioner argued that the similarity in shape between Morgan's forearm support and Forjot's cuff would make the application of a strap, as taught by Morgan, a straightforward and predictable design choice to improve stability.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Forjot (French Patent No. 899,565), Deckard (Patent 3,793,759).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground used Deckard to teach the strap element. Deckard discloses a "pistol mounting" designed for fastening to a user's forearm by means of "attached straps" (straps 13 and 14).
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would find it obvious to apply Deckard's strap system to Forjot's cuff to achieve a more secure engagement, a shared objective. The petitioner also noted that the method of attaching the support structure to the rear of the gun is similar in both Deckard and Forjot, making the combination of their respective teachings particularly straightforward and predictable.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-5 of Patent 9,354,021 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.