PTAB

PGR2025-00089

Shuttleslide LLC v. Sea Swivel Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Swivel Mounts for Attaching and Maneuvering Accessories over the Gunnel of a Boat or any Other Mounting Surface
  • Brief Description: The ’111 patent relates to swivel mounts for attaching accessories, such as trolling motors, to the gunnel of a boat. The invention describes a mounting assembly with an elongated mounting plate coupled to a support plate via a swivel element, allowing an attached accessory to be pivoted over the side of the boat.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Grady-White Mount - Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, and 11 are anticipated by the Grady-White Pivoting Trolling Motor Mount.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Grady-White Pivoting Trolling Motor Mount (a publicly available product evidenced by a 2014 magazine article and photographs).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the Grady-White mount, a commercial product publicly available since at least May 2014, inherently discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Annotated photographs were provided to show the product’s elongated mounting plate for the trolling motor, a support plate that fastens to the boat, and a swivel element connecting them. Petitioner asserted this configuration allows the motor to swivel about a perpendicular axis, meeting all limitations of independent claims 1 and 8. Further, features like a locking pin and multiple bolt holes on the product were alleged to meet the limitations of various dependent claims.

Ground 2: Anticipation by Gillespie - Claims 1-4 are anticipated by Gillespie.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gillespie (Patent 6,684,558).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Gillespie, which discloses a swivel mount for a downrigger unit, teaches all elements of claims 1-4. The argument mapped Gillespie's "upper plate 34" to the claimed "elongated mounting plate," its "lower plate 32" to the "support plate," and its "vertical shaft or pin 38" to the "swivel element." Petitioner contended that these components are coupled to allow pivotal movement as required by claim 1. The dependent claim limitations, including a "locking pin" (claim 2) and a "cantilevered" second portion of the mounting plate (claim 4), were also allegedly disclosed by Gillespie’s lateral key and extending plate structures, respectively.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Gillespie and Hunziker - Claim 5 is obvious over Gillespie in view of Hunziker.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gillespie (Patent 6,684,558), Hunziker (Patent 11,584,495).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gillespie teaches the base swivel mount recited in claim 4. Hunziker was cited for its disclosure of a boat motor mounting bracket with a top plate having a "plurality of apertures" for securing a trolling motor. Petitioner contended that adding Hunziker’s plurality of holes to the second portion of Gillespie's mounting plate would arrive at the invention of claim 5.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because both relate to the same field of securing marine accessories to a boat’s gunnel and address the common problem of mounting such devices.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a clear expectation of success in modifying Gillespie’s mount with Hunziker’s hole pattern. This was presented as a simple and predictable substitution of one known mounting feature for another to achieve the known benefit of accommodating accessories via bolts.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional anticipation and obviousness challenges against claims 1-18 based on various combinations of prior art, including Breford (Patent 3,897,086), Leiss (Application # 2003/0194921), Gratsch (Application # 2010/0242828), and Henze (Patent 4,044,489). Petitioner also challenged claims 6, 10, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for indefiniteness and lack of written description.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Gunnel": Petitioner argued the term "gunnel" should be construed to mean "the upper surface of a boat’s hull, including the top deck portion at the bow of a boat." This construction is broader than a simple "edge" and was based on the specification’s explicit statement that the term is "inclusive to the top deck portion" and its functional description of the gunnel as a surface for mounting assemblies.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of post-grant review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’111 patent as unpatentable.