PTAB

IPR2022-00521

ABB Inc v. Northwestern University

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Intelligent Assist Devices
Brief Description: The ’336 patent relates to intelligent assist devices (IADs), particularly robots with a modular architecture designed to interact with and assist humans in moving payloads. The system comprises motion modules, computational nodes, and communication links to control the device.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Nof, "Handbook of Industrial Robotics," 2nd ed. (1999) ("The Handbook").
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that The Handbook, a comprehensive textbook on robotics, disclosed every limitation of the challenged claims. It was asserted that The Handbook explicitly described "intelligent assist devices" that work with people and detailed robotic systems with a modular architecture. Specifically, Petitioner mapped elements from various figures and chapters to show the presence of a "motion module" (a robot arm), a "plurality of computational nodes" (microprocessors, PCs, teach pendants, servo controllers), and "communication links" (networks like Profibus or Ethernet) to control the motion module. Dependent claims reciting sensors, actuators, network access (LAN, WAN, Internet), and user interfaces were also argued to be disclosed within the general teachings of robotic system configurations in The Handbook.

Prior Art Relied Upon: The Handbook and Peshkin ("Cobots," an article published in 1999).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative, arguing that if The Handbook alone was found not to disclose an "intelligent assist system," then Peshkin remedied that deficiency. Peshkin, co-authored by inventors of the ’336 patent, described "cobots" (collaborative robots) intended for direct interaction with human workers, which Petitioner contended was the exact type of system claimed. The Handbook provided the well-known, conventional components for building such a system, including the controller architecture, communication protocols, and modular components that were allegedly missing from Peshkin.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the specific "cobot" concept from Peshkin with the foundational robotic controller and system architecture principles from The Handbook. The Handbook was designed as a general reference for implementing any type of industrial robotic system, including the specific IADs described in Peshkin.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the combination involved applying a general-purpose robotic architecture (The Handbook) to a specific type of robot (Peshkin's cobot), using known technologies with predictable results.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Backes (Patent 5,341,459).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Backes disclosed a telerobot control system that met all limitations of the claims under the Patent Owner's broad construction of "intelligent assist system." Backes described a modular system with a remote "task execution system" (the motion module) containing a robot manipulator and its own CPU (an embedded computational node). The system also included multiple operator terminals (a plurality of computational nodes) that communicated with the task execution system via communication links to control the robot. Petitioner further asserted that Backes disclosed various sensors, user actuators (hand controllers), and a hub for user interface, thereby anticipating numerous dependent claims.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including claims 1, 4-10, 13, 18-23, and 25-26 as obvious over Backes in view of Peshkin; and claims 14-16 as obvious over Backes in view of The Handbook, with or without Peshkin. These grounds relied on similar theories where one reference supplied the core robotic system and the other supplied either the "intelligent assist" feature or networking capabilities.

"intelligent assist system": Petitioner argued this preamble term was limiting because the patentee relied on it during prosecution to overcome prior art.
- Narrower Construction: Based on the specification and prosecution history, Petitioner proposed the term meant "a single or multiple axis computer controlled machine with a hybrid programmable computer-human control system that interacts with a human operator to assist in moving a payload."
- Broader Construction: Petitioner noted that in parallel litigation, the Patent Owner asserted a broader construction covering systems that can operate semi-autonomously or fully autonomously around humans.
- Petitioner's Stance: Petitioner contended that all challenged claims were unpatentable under either construction.

Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, asserting that the factors weighed in favor of institution. The parallel district court litigation was in a very early stage, with no case schedule, Markman hearing, or trial date set. Petitioner also stipulated that it would not pursue in the litigation any invalidity ground on which the Board institutes an IPR. This stipulation, combined with the early stage of the litigation, was argued to weigh strongly against denial.

Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 4-10, 13-16, 18-23, and 25-26 of the ’336 patent as unpatentable.