PTAB

PGR2025-00080

Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp v. Klein Tools Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Safety Helmet System
  • Brief Description: The ’265 patent describes a safety helmet system featuring front and rear receptacles for mounting accessories. The receptacles are claimed to include a pair of external slots and an integrally molded stop to securely hold devices like headlamps.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Yan and Daley - Claims 1-4 are obvious over Yan in view of Daley.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Yan (Chinese Utility Model App. No. 2011-20014896.0) and Daley (Patent 9,993,043).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Yan disclosed the basic safety helmet with a molded outer shell, brim, and front and rear "snap-fit slots" (receptacles) having symmetrically arranged L-shaped slots for mounting accessories. However, Yan lacked a robust stop feature. Daley was alleged to cure this deficiency by teaching a helmet receptacle with an integrally molded protrusion (the claimed "stop") disposed between locking ears (the claimed "external slots") to securely hold a headlight assembly. The combination of Yan’s helmet with Daley’s integrally molded stop feature was argued to render claim 1 obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would combine the references to improve the security of accessory mounting on Yan's helmet, a known problem. Yan itself invited "equivalent structural modifications," and Daley provided a known, predictable solution for preventing accessories from slipping off. Combining Daley’s integrally molded stop with Yan’s receptacles would be a simple substitution to achieve a more robust and commercially desirable product.
    • Expectation of Success: The modification was presented as a routine combination of known elements from the same field of art (safety helmets), leading to a high expectation of success.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Yan and Nesbitt - Claims 1-4 are obvious over Yan in view of Nesbitt.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Yan (Chinese Utility Model App. No. 2011-20014896.0) and Nesbitt (Patent 4,304,009).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative to Daley for teaching the claimed stop feature. Petitioner contended Yan taught the basic helmet with front and rear receptacles. Nesbitt was asserted to teach a safety helmet with a plurality of sockets integrally molded into the shell, where each socket includes a protruding nub (the claimed "stop") for retaining devices. The combination of Yan's helmet with Nesbitt's integrally molded nub was argued to meet the limitations of claim 1.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was similar to the Yan/Daley combination: to improve the security of the accessory attachment in Yan. A POSITA seeking to create a more robust mounting system would have looked to analogous art like Nesbitt and found its teaching of integrally molding a protruding nub into a receptacle to be a straightforward and advantageous modification for Yan's design.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that incorporating Nesbitt's established method of integrally molding nubs into Yan's snap-fit slots would have been a routine design choice for a POSA with a predictable and successful outcome.

Ground 3: Anticipation by Klein News Release - Claims 1-4 are anticipated by the Klein News Release.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Klein News Release (“KNR”), published July 23, 2019.

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was predicated on a challenge to the ’265 patent’s claimed priority date. Petitioner argued that the limitations "integrally molded with the exterior surface of the outer shell" (claim 1) and "formed from a common material" (claim 2) were new matter added during prosecution of the parent application in October 2021 and April 2022, years after the original provisional applications were filed. Without support in the priority applications, the challenged claims were only entitled to a priority date no earlier than October 21, 2021. The KNR, published by the Patent Owner in 2019, described its new "patent-pending" hard hats with front and back accessory mounts. Petitioner asserted that the KNR, through text and images, disclosed every element of claims 1-4, thereby anticipating them.
    • Key Aspects: The core of this ground was the argument that the Patent Owner’s own product announcement became invalidating prior art due to the improper addition of new matter during prosecution, which forfeited the benefit of the earlier filing date.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 1-4 based on the combination of Yan, Daley, and Kiessler (German Utility Model App. No. 2020-06007009). This ground argued that Kiessler further taught a specific clip mechanism (clamping lever) on an accessory and a corresponding groove head on the helmet to improve alignment and security.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Lack of Written Description for "Pairs of External Slots": A central contention, forming the basis of a standalone §112 ground, was that the patent's specification failed to provide written description support for a "first pair of external slots" and a "second pair of external slots." Petitioner argued the specification and figures consistently disclosed only a single external slot for each of the front and rear receptacles, not a pair as recited in every challenged claim.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of Post-Grant Review and cancellation of claims 1-4 of the ’265 patent as unpatentable.