PTAB

IPR2025-01407

Cruzr Saddles LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Harness Rope Structures
  • Brief Description: The ’175 patent discloses a bridge rope assembly for a hunting saddle. The assembly features a main rope body made of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), with one end forming a spliced eye loop and the other end adjustable via a friction hitch, such as a Prusik knot.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Petitioner asserted that the correct priority date for the ’175 patent is April 15, 2021, not January 7, 2020, due to a break in the priority chain where Patent Owner failed to reference an intermediate application. This priority date dispute is central to the grounds. Ground 1 is based on the 2021 date, while Grounds 2 and 3 are alternative arguments assuming the 2020 date arguendo.

Ground 1: Claims 1-14 are Anticipated and/or Obvious over Tethrd’s Own Prior Art

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tethrd Mantis VS The Phantom Saddles (a Jan. 21, 2020 YouTube video, Ex. 1132), Tethrd PHANTOM Review and How-To Tutorial! (a Jan. 26, 2020 YouTube video, Ex. 1133), Tethrd Phantom’s Bridge Knot (an Apr. 13, 2020 SaddleHunter forum post, Ex. 1116), and DIY Utilibridge (a Jan. 19, 2020 YouTube video, Ex. 1125 and related forum posts).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that because the correct priority date is April 15, 2021, Patent Owner’s own public disclosures from 2020 describing its Phantom saddle and "Utilibridge" became prior art. These references allegedly disclosed every element of claims 1, 4-6, 10-11, and 14, including a main body of Amsteel (UHMWPE) with a fully buried splice forming an eye loop and a continuous loop Prusik knot for adjustability. The secondary references describing DIY versions of the Utilibridge disclosed the remaining quantitative limitations for claims 2-3, 7-9, and 12-13.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the primary Phantom saddle videos with the DIY references to create a homemade version of the commercial product, which would have included selecting the specific rope lengths and dimensions taught in the DIY guides.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success as the DIY references provided explicit instructions for building a bridge for the specific Tethrd Phantom saddle.

Ground 2: Claims 1-14 are Obvious Over Pre-AIA Prior Art

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tree Saddle Bridge Basics (a YouTube video, Ex. 1134) describing the Aero Hunter Kestrel saddle and a G2 Outdoors DIY saddle, in view of various YouTube videos and forum posts from SaddleHunter and HammockForums published within the AIA’s one-year grace period.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground assumed, arguendo, a January 7, 2020 priority date. The primary reference (Tree Saddle Bridge Basics) disclosed basic saddle bridges, including a fixed-length Samson predator rope bridge and a DIY Amsteel bridge. The secondary references taught specific modifications to such bridges.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued that a POSITA would combine the base saddles from the primary art with the modifications taught in the secondary art to solve known problems. For instance, a POSITA would replace a fixed-length bridge with an adjustable one using a friction hitch (as taught in the modification art) to improve comfort and reduce dangle. They would also create a fully buried splice to eliminate bumps that catch on carabiners, a well-documented issue.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination would have been successful because the secondary references provided well-known, predictable solutions (e.g., adding a Prusik knot, using Amsteel, fully burying splices) to common problems with basic saddle bridges.

Ground 3: Claims 1-14 are Obvious Over Pre-Grace Period Prior Art

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mantis Saddle - Setup and Directions (a Dec. 30, 2018 YouTube video, Ex. 1131), in view of various pre-2019 DIY modification videos, forum posts (from ArboristSite, SaddleHunter, HammockForums), and Samson splicing instructions.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground also assumed the January 7, 2020 priority date but relied only on art published before the one-year grace period. The primary reference disclosed the Tethrd Mantis saddle, which came with a fixed-length Amsteel bridge.
    • Motivation to combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have been motivated to modify the existing Mantis bridge to make it adjustable and improve its performance. The secondary references, from analogous arts like arborism and hammock camping, taught the exact techniques needed, such as removing a fixed eye loop, replacing it with a Prusik knot for adjustability, and using a fully buried splice for a smoother profile.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in applying these standard, well-documented rope splicing and modification techniques to the Mantis Amsteel bridge to achieve a predictable improvement in function.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner argued that several claim terms require construction and are critical to the invalidity analysis.

  • Claim Preamble: Argued to be limiting as it provides antecedent basis and essential structure for "a bridge rope assembly."
  • "Being configured to engage": Proposed to mean "spliced to interlock with." Petitioner contended this is not a simple connection but a permanent, spliced engagement as consistently described and depicted in the ’175 patent specification.
  • "Adjacent to": Proposed to mean "within a distance of 3.0 inches or less from." This construction was based on explicit ranges provided in the patent’s specification for the distance between the rope ends.
  • "Length": Proposed to mean "linear measurement before splicing." Petitioner argued the specification shows that splicing shortens the rope, so the claimed lengths must refer to the starting material length, distinguishing it from post-splicing terms like "distance."

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

Petitioner argued that the PTAB is the best forum to resolve the dispute and that discretionary denial would be inappropriate. The core reasons provided were the USPTO's unique expertise in evaluating complex priority chain issues and in determining the status of internet-based prior art like YouTube videos and forum posts. Petitioner also cited a public policy interest in reinforcing an inventor's duty to disclose all material prior art, suggesting the most relevant art (internet publications) was withheld during prosecution.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-14 of the ’175 patent as unpatentable.