Les ATeliers Beau ROC Inc v. Air Power Systems Co LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2020-01702
• Patent #: 7,976,105
• Filed: September 28, 2020
• Petitioner(s): Les Ateliers Beau-Roc Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Air Power Systems Co., Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Dump Truck Tailgate Lifting Mechanism
• Brief Description: The ’105 patent discloses a mechanism for raising and lowering a tailgate on the dump box of a vehicle like a dump truck. The patent’s asserted innovation is the use of a "double cylinder assembly" to actuate the tailgate, replacing the conventional single-cylinder design acknowledged as prior art in the patent’s specification.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-20 are obvious over Stoll in view of the General Knowledge of a POSITA

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Stoll (GB 1 212 586) and general knowledge in the art, evidenced by admissions in the ’105 patent specification and expert testimony.
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the ’105 patent’s own specification and figures (Figs. 1-3) describe a conventional, prior art high-lift tailgate dump truck that meets every limitation of the independent claims except for the use of a "double cylinder assembly." The acknowledged prior art included a dump box with an open end, a pivoting tailgate, corner posts for housing actuators, and a single cylinder assembly on each side of the truck to lift the tailgate via a yoke. The only missing element was replacing the single cylinder in each corner post with a double cylinder assembly.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to replace the single large cylinder with two smaller cylinders to solve a known design trade-off. To increase lifting force for heavier tailgates, a POSITA would need to increase the cylinder piston's surface area. Using a single, wider cylinder would either require intruding into the dump box (trapping debris) or increasing the truck’s overall width (violating regulations). Stoll explicitly teaches replacing one large cylinder with two smaller ones to achieve the same piston power in a "compact, space-saving arrangement." A POSITA would have been motivated to apply Stoll’s teaching to the known dump truck design to increase lifting force without negatively impacting the dump box capacity or vehicle width.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as this was a simple substitution of known mechanical components for their intended purpose, leading to predictable results.

Ground 2: Claims 1-20 are obvious over Martin in view of Stoll

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Martin (Patent 3,860,288) and Stoll (GB 1 212 586).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Martin discloses a dump truck with all the core features of claim 1: a dump box, a supported tailgate, and a cylinder assembly on each side that extends between the dump box and tailgate. Martin’s power units are housed in rectangular corner posts and connect to the tailgate via a yoke. As with the general knowledge dump truck, Martin discloses a single cylinder assembly on each side, not a double cylinder assembly.
  • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to modify Martin is identical to the reasoning in Ground 1. A POSITA seeking to improve Martin’s design for heavier loads would have recognized the same space constraint problem and would have looked to known solutions. Stoll provides the explicit solution of using two smaller cylinders to create a more compact, space-saving actuator with equivalent or greater force, making it an obvious modification to Martin.

Ground 3: Claims 1-20 are obvious over Biddy in view of Stoll

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Biddy (Patent 4,989,918) and Stoll (GB 1 212 586).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Biddy discloses a dump truck with a tailgate moved by a cylinder assembly housed within a hollow, rectangular corner post on each side of the dump box. Biddy’s cylinder connects to the tailgate via an interconnected shaft and yoke-like bracket. Similar to Martin, Biddy’s limitation is the disclosure of a single cylinder assembly rather than a double cylinder assembly.
  • Motivation to Combine: The rationale to combine Biddy with Stoll mirrors that of the previous grounds. A POSITA would have been motivated to substitute Biddy’s single cylinder assembly with Stoll’s dual-cylinder design to achieve a more powerful tailgate lift mechanism within the same or a smaller physical footprint, which Stoll expressly teaches.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness grounds that added Weber (AT 398 739 B) to each of the primary combinations. Weber was cited for its specific teaching of using multiple, smaller cylinders for lifting the liftgate of a truck to optimize available space and achieve a desired load-bearing capacity, further reinforcing the motivation to make the claimed substitution.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "Either-Or" Limitation: Petitioner highlighted that independent claims 1 and 11 require a double cylinder assembly wherein either (1) the assembly is disposed within a hollow corner post, or (2) the assembly includes two adjacent cylinders with piston rods connected to a cross bar and yoke.
• Petitioner argued that while case law suggests "either-or" phrasing creates mutually exclusive options (requiring one but not both), the ’105 patent’s prosecution history and its single described embodiment (which includes features of both prongs) suggest a non-mutually exclusive meaning was intended. Petitioner asserted that the claims are obvious under either construction, as a POSITA would have found it obvious to combine the features or to omit one if its function was not desired.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’105 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.