PTAB

IPR2024-00291

DBR Finance Inc v. Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: CAMOUFLAGE MATERIAL, FOR A HUNTING BLIND
  • Brief Description: The ’535 patent discloses a pop-up hunting blind comprising a flexible frame and panels of interwoven mesh fabric. The mesh fabric is designed to create a “one-way” viewing effect, having a camouflage pattern on its exterior side and a dark-colored coating on its interior side to make the blind's interior less visible from the outside.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground A: Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 15-18 are obvious over [Whybrew](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-00291/doc/1002) in view of [Strength](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-00291/doc/1003).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Whybrew (Patent 8,375,968) and Strength (Patent 6,709,993).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Whybrew discloses most elements of the independent claims, including a portable hunting blind with a flexible pop-up frame, a mesh fabric window on a side panel, and a less translucent non-mesh roof. This combination created a "one-way" viewing effect by making the blind's interior darker than the exterior. Petitioner asserted that Strength teaches the remaining key elements: a woven mesh fabric for hunting blinds that has a camouflage pattern on a first (exterior) side and a dark, light-reducing coating containing carbon black pigment on a second (interior) side.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to solve a known problem shared by both references: preventing game from seeing an occupant inside a blind. A POSITA would combine the teachings by substituting Strength’s improved mesh fabric for Whybrew’s simpler mesh window. This would be a simple substitution of known elements to achieve the predictable result of an enhanced "one-way" viewing effect by further increasing the light differential between the interior and exterior of the blind.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involves replacing one type of mesh fabric with another in the same application (a hunting blind) to improve a known and desired characteristic.

Ground B: Claims 6-7 and 19 are obvious over Whybrew in view of Strength and [Ransom](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-00291/doc/1004).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Whybrew (Patent 8,375,968), Strength (Patent 6,709,993), and Ransom (Patent 7,137,399).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the combination of Whybrew and Strength from Ground A. To address the limitations of claims 6, 7, and 19 concerning an openable window for shooting, Petitioner introduced Ransom. Ransom was cited for its explicit disclosure of a portable hunting blind structure with panel elements that include an access port, such as a window, which can be opened to provide a shooting position for the occupant.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that Whybrew required opening the entire blind to create a shooting position, which would create significant noise and visual disturbance. Ransom solved this exact problem by teaching a smaller, dedicated openable window. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Ransom's well-known and advantageous window design into the Whybrew/Strength blind to create a less disruptive and more effective shooting position.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in adding an openable window to a fabric hunting blind, as this was a common, well-understood, and predictable modification in the art.

Ground C: Claim 14 is obvious over Whybrew in view of Strength and [Hazinski](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-00291/doc/1005).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Whybrew (Patent 8,375,968), Strength (Patent 6,709,993), and Hazinski (Patent 5,385,165).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground also builds on the Whybrew and Strength combination. Petitioner introduced Hazinski to supply the limitation of claim 14, which requires the mesh panels to provide a 360-degree view from the interior of the structure. Hazinski was cited for its disclosure of a pop-up hunting blind with a see-through screen or mesh fabric that "allows a hunter to have three hundred and sixty degrees of visibility."
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would be motivated to combine the teachings because both Hazinski and the base Whybrew/Strength combination relate to pop-up hunting blinds with camouflage and one-way viewing mesh. Improving the hunter's field of view is a recognized goal in the art, and a POSITA would have found it obvious to apply Hazinski's 360-degree visibility design to the Whybrew/Strength blind to improve its functionality.
    • Expectation of Success: There would be a high expectation of success, as the modification involves incorporating a known design feature (360-degree visibility) from one pop-up blind into another to achieve a predictable improvement.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "one or more panels of mesh material of interwoven fabric": Petitioner argued that in the absence of a specific definition in the patent, this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning: "a woven material of open texture with spaced holes therein."
  • "configured to be attached between": Petitioner contended this term is broader than "attached to" and should be construed to mean "attached directly or indirectly" to the frame members. This argument was based on claim differentiation (contrasting the language used for mesh vs. non-mesh material in the same claim) and the specification's description. This construction is critical to Petitioner's argument that Whybrew meets this limitation, as Whybrew's mesh window is stitched to a fabric panel rather than being attached directly to the frame members.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-19 of Patent 11,399,535 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.