Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 1 of 100 PageID #: 39634
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 1 of 100 PagelD #: 39634
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 2 of 100 PageID #: 39635
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioners
`v.
`CATERPILLAR PAVING PRODUCTS INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR2022-01394
`Patent No. 7,523,995
`_____________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,523,995
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 3 of 100 PageID #: 39636
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND IN THE ART ...................................................................... 2
`A.
`Prior-art work machines used retractable wheels or tracks to improve
`both the machine’s stability and maneuverability. ................................ 4
`Prior-art work machines used actuators, including pivoting and
`steering cylinders spatially separated along a lifting column, to
`address the known disadvantages of manually moving wheels or
`tracks. ..................................................................................................... 6
`Prior-art work machines used controllers and sensor feedback for
`coordinating control of actuators........................................................... 9
`III. THE ’995 PATENT ....................................................................................... 11
`A. Alleged Invention of the ’995 Patent .................................................. 11
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 13
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 14
`V.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 15
`A.
`Claim 45 .............................................................................................. 16
`support means ............................................................................ 16
`1.
`a.
`Function ................................................................... 16
`b.
`Structure ................................................................... 17
`first actuatable means ................................................................ 17
`a.
`Function ................................................................... 17
`b.
`Structure ................................................................... 18
`second actuatable means ............................................................ 18
`a.
`Function ................................................................... 18
`b.
`Structure ................................................................... 19
`VI. STATUTORY GROUNDS ........................................................................... 20
`B.
`Volpe is a Prior-Art Publication .......................................................... 21
`C.
`Additional Prior-Art Applied .............................................................. 22
`D.
`The Board should not deny institution under Section 325(d). ............ 22
`E.
`The Fintiv factors do not support discretionary denial ....................... 24
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 4 of 100 PageID #: 39637
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`VII. Ground 1: Claims 18 and 29-31 are unpatentable as obvious over Volpe in
`view of Piccoli. .............................................................................................. 26
`A.
`Claim 18 .............................................................................................. 26
`[18.P] A self-propelled machine, comprising: ........................... 26
`1.
`2.
`[18.1] a machine frame supportable by a plurality of ground
`engaging units; .......................................................................... 27
`[18.2] a support device connected between said machine frame
`and at least one of said ground engaging units, said support
`device including a lifting column having a lifting column axis
`and being adapted to controllably raise and lower said at least
`one ground engaging unit about said axis relative to said
`machine frame; ......................................................................... 29
`[18.3] a first actuator connected to said support device and
`adapted to move said at least one ground engaging unit
`between projecting and retracted positions relative to said
`machine frame; ......................................................................... 32
`[18.4] a second actuator connected to said lifting column and
`adapted to cause at least a portion of said lifting column to
`rotate about said lifting column axis relative to said machine
`frame, ........................................................................................ 33
`[18.5] said second actuator being positioned at a location
`linearly spaced apart from said first actuator along said lifting
`column axis. .............................................................................. 34
`7. Motivation to combine Volpe with Piccoli ................................. 37
`Reasonable Expectation of Success ........................................... 41
`8.
`Claim 29 .............................................................................................. 42
`B.
`Claim 30. ............................................................................................. 43
`C.
`Claim 31. ............................................................................................. 44
`D.
`VIII. Ground 2: Claims 21-27, 32, 35, 45, 49-55, 57-60, and 63 are unpatentable
`over Volpe in view of Piccoli and Skotnikov. ............................................... 45
`A.
`Claim 45 .............................................................................................. 45
`1.
`[45.P] A self-propelled machine, comprising: ........................... 46
`2.
`[45.1] a machine frame supportable by a plurality of ground
`engaging units; .......................................................................... 46
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 5 of 100 PageID #: 39638
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`[45.2] support means for supporting said machine frame, said
`support means being connected to said machine frame and
`including a generally vertically oriented lifting column having
`a lifting column axis and being connected to at least one of said
`ground engaging units; ............................................................. 46
`[45.3] first actuatable means for moving said at least one
`ground engaging unit between projecting and retracted
`positions relative to said machine frame; ................................. 46
`[45.4A] second actuatable means for rotating said at least one
`ground engaging unit… ............................................................ 47
`[45.4B] second actuatable means… to maintain the same
`rotational direction of said at least one ground engaging unit in
`each of said projecting and retracted positions, ...................... 47
`[45.5] said second actuatable means being positioned at a
`location spaced apart from said first actuatable means along an
`axis of said lifting column; and ................................................. 49
`[45.6] controller means for coordinating the actuation of said
`first and second actuatable means. ........................................... 49
`9. Motivation to combine Skotnikov with Volpe and Piccoli. ........ 50
`10. Reasonable Expectation of Success ........................................... 53
`Claim 49 .............................................................................................. 53
`1. Motivation to combine Skotnikov with Volpe and Piccoli. ........ 54
`Reasonable Expectation of Success ........................................... 55
`2.
`Claim 21 .............................................................................................. 56
`1.
`[21.1] …a controller associated with and adapted to coordinate
`the actuation of said first and second actuators, ...................... 56
`[21.2] said machine including at least a rotation sensor adapted
`to produce an alignment signal indicative of the rotational
`position of said at least one ground engaging unit relative to
`said machine frame, said rotation sensor being connected to
`deliver said alignment signal to said controller. ...................... 56
`Claims 22 and 50 ................................................................................. 57
`Claims 23, 51, and 63 .......................................................................... 58
`1. Motivation to combine Skotnikov with Volpe Manual and
`Piccoli. ...................................................................................... 59
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`E.
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 6 of 100 PageID #: 39639
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`
`F.
`G.
`H.
`
`I.
`J.
`K.
`
`Reasonable Expectation of Success ........................................... 60
`2.
`Claims 24 and 52 ................................................................................. 61
`Claims 25 and 53 ................................................................................. 63
`Claims 26 and 54 ................................................................................. 64
`“a steering command element connected to said controller” ... 64
`1.
`2.
`“wherein said controller [] [is adapted to controllably actuate]
`said second [actuator] to rotate said at least one ground
`engaging unit about said lifting column axis in response to said
`pivot sensor position signal and said steering command
`element” .................................................................................... 66
`3. Motivation to combine Skotnikov with Volpe Manual and
`Piccoli. ...................................................................................... 67
`Reasonable Expectation of Success ........................................... 67
`4.
`Claims 27 and 55 ................................................................................. 67
`Claims 32 and 60 ................................................................................. 70
`Claim 35 .............................................................................................. 71
`1.
`[35.1] …a controller associated with and adapted to coordinate
`the actuation of said first and second actuators, and ............... 71
`[35.2] including a pivot sensor adapted to produce a position
`signal indicative of the position of said at least one ground
`engaging unit relative to said machine frame between said
`projecting and retracted positions, said pivot sensor being
`connected to deliver said position signal to said controller ..... 71
`Claim 57 .............................................................................................. 72
`L.
`M. Claim 58 .............................................................................................. 73
`N.
`Claim 59 .............................................................................................. 73
`IX. Ground 3: Claim 33 is unpatentable over Volpe in view of Piccoli, further in
`view of Dubay. ............................................................................................... 74
`A. Motivation to Combine Dubay with Volpe and Piccoli ...................... 76
`B.
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .................................................... 76
`X. Ground 4: Claim 61 is unpatentable over Volpe in view of Piccoli and
`Skotnikov, further in view of Dubay. ............................................................ 77
`XI. Ground 5: Claims 28 and 56 are unpatentable over Volpe in view of Piccoli
`and Skotnikov, further in view of McColl. .................................................... 78
`
`2.
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 7 of 100 PageID #: 39640
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`
`A. Motivation to Combine McColl with Volpe Manual-Piccoli -
`Skotnikov ............................................................................................. 79
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .................................................... 80
`B.
`XII. Ground 6: Claim 34 is unpatentable over Volpe in view of Piccoli, further in
`view of McCutcheon...................................................................................... 81
`A. Motivation to Combine McCutcheon with Volpe and Piccoli ............ 83
`B.
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .................................................... 84
`XIII. Ground 7: Claim 62 is unpatentable over Volpe in view of Piccoli and
`Skotnikov, further in view of McCutcheon. .................................................. 85
`XIV. Objective indicia do not support patentability. .............................................. 86
`XV. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 87
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest ........................................................................ 87
`B.
`Related Matters .................................................................................... 87
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information ........................ 87
`XVI. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ...................................................................... 88
`XVII. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH CLAIM
`CHALLENGED ............................................................................................ 89
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 8 of 100 PageID #: 39641
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`Prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`Declaration of Cameron Orr, P.E.
`Curriculum Vitae of Cameron Orr, P.E.
`Volpe SF 100 T4 Operating Instruction Book (“Volpe”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0180092 to Piccoli (“Piccoli”)
`WO 02/103117 to Dubay (“Dubay”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,311,795 to Skotnikov et al. (“Skotnikov)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,435,766 to Titford (“Titford”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,237,994 to McColl (“McColl”)
`EP 1001088A2 to Bitelli (“Bitelli ’088”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,167,826 to Feliz (“Feliz”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,566,553 to McCutcheon (“McCutcheon”)
`EP 1039037A2 to Bitelli (“Bitelli ’037”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,106,073 to Simons et al.
`Declaration of Ray Hogan previously submitted in IPR2018-01201
`Declaration of Charles Randall Henderson previously submitted in
`IPR2018-01201
`Declaration of William Zehender previously submitted in IPR2018-
`01201
`Sutter County Records for the Volpe SF 100 T4 Milling Machine
`previously submitted in IPR2018-01201
`Declaration of John W. Arnold, P.E. previously submitted in
`IPR2018-01201
`U.S. Patent No. 3,843,274 to Gutman et al. (“Gutman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,498,554 to Young et al. (“Young”)
`Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar Paving Products Inc.,
`IPR2018-01201, Final Written Decision, Paper 32 (P.T.A.B., Dec.
`13, 2019)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,966,418 to Wirtgen (“Wirtgen”)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,572,458 to Tax (“Tax”).
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`1025
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 9 of 100 PageID #: 39642
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`
`Exhibit No.
`1026
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`1036
`1037
`
`
`
`
`
`Description
`WIPO Pub. No. WO 97/42377 to Busley (“Busley”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,140,693 (“the ’693 patent”)
`Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar Paving Products Inc.,
`IPR2018-01202, Final Written Decision, Paper 28 (P.T.A.B., Dec.
`13, 2019)
`Wirtgen Am., Inc. et al. v. Caterpillar Paving Prod., Inc., 2020-
`1527, Order at 1 (C.A.F.C.) (Fed. Cir. dismissed June 22, 2020.)
`Director Vidal Memorandum, “Interim Procedure for Discretionary
`Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court
`Litigation,” June 21, 2022
`Dkt. 33, Amended Complaint, C.A. No. 17-770-RGA (Sept. 2,
`2021)
`Dkt. 43, Answer to Amended Complaint and Counterclaims, C.A.
`No. 17-770-RGA-MPT (Oct. 14, 2021)
`Caterpillar Inc. v. Wirtgen Am., Inc., IPR2022-01264, Petition
`(P.T.A.B., July 22, 2022).
`Wirtgen Am., Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., C.A. No. 17-770-RGA,
`Court’s Order Setting Claim Construction Hearing
`Dkt. 88, Stipulation Extending Fact Discovery Cutoff (Apr. 4,
`2022)
`Federal Court Management Statistics (Mar. 31, 2022)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,450,048 to Samuelson et al. (“Samuelson”)
`
`- vii -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 10 of 100 PageID #: 39643
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`
`Wirtgen America, Inc. (“Wirtgen”) petitions for inter partes review of
`
`claims 18, 21-35, 45, and 49-63 of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995 (“the ’995 patent”),
`
`assigned to Caterpillar Paving Products Inc. (“Caterpillar”).
`
`I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`The ’995 patent claims well-known features: a self-propelled machine
`
`having a frame supported by wheels/tracks, lifting columns to raise and lower the
`
`frame, an actuator to move a wheel/track between projecting and retracted
`
`positions relative to the frame, and an actuator to rotate the wheel/track. The
`
`background of the ’995 patent acknowledges these features as well-known. Indeed,
`
`“re-entering wheels” were well-known in the art and have long been used on
`
`milling machines—including those patented by Caterpillar well-before the filing of
`
`the ’995 patent.
`
`Caterpillar obtained the ’995 patent by arguing that positioning the claimed
`
`second actuator at a location linearly spaced apart from the first actuator along the
`
`lifting column axis was somehow novel. But vertically separating a steering
`
`actuator from a pivoting actuator was nothing new. For example, Piccoli—a
`
`reference not considered during prosecution—discloses a pivoting actuator
`
`vertically separated from a work machine’s steering actuator. As shown below,
`
`Piccoli’s pivoting actuator would have been obvious to implement on Volpe’s
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 11 of 100 PageID #: 39644
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`
`machine. Accordingly, independent claims 18 and 45 of the ’995 patent should be
`
`canceled.
`
`The challenged dependent claims add only trivial elements that were well-
`
`known in the prior-art. Wirtgen requests that the Board institute trial and cancel
`
`claims 18, 21-35, 45, and 49-63 of the ’995 patent. EX1003, ¶¶1-26. In support of
`
`its petition, Wirtgen has submitted the Declaration of Cameron Orr, P.E., an expert
`
`with 14 years of experience in the design and development of mobile equipment,
`
`including construction equipment. EX1003, ¶¶27-33.
`
`II. BACKGROUND IN THE ART
`Work machines for treating roadways were well-known. EX1003, ¶37-38. A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have understood “work
`
`machines” to include various construction and off-road equipment. Id. Exemplary
`
`work machines include road milling machines and slipform pavers. Id. These
`
`machines traversed uneven ground surfaces, necessitating special design
`
`requirements to ensure reliable operation. Id.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 12 of 100 PageID #: 39645
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`
`EX1007, FIG. 1 (annotated) (Road Milling Machine).
`
`EX1006, FIG. 1 (annotated) (Slipform Paver Machine).
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 13 of 100 PageID #: 39646
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`
`
`
`To improve the stability of work machines, particularly milling machines,
`
`the prior-art recognized the need to widen the machine’s stance by locating the
`
`machine’s wheels/tracks further away from the machine’s frame, as shown below
`
`in Figure BB-1 of Volpe SF 100 T4 Operating Instruction Book (“Volpe”).
`
`EX1003, ¶¶40-43; EX1005, 0065; EX1007, 2:9-10; EX1011, ¶0008.
`
`
`
`EX1005, FIG. BB-1, 0065 (annotated).
`
`However, the prior-art also recognized the need to mill or pave against
`
`obstacles. EX1005, 51; EX1006, ¶4, EX1011, ¶8; EX1003, ¶¶44-45. The prior-art
`
`satisfied these competing needs by allowing the machine’s wheel/track to pivot to
`
`a retracted position, where the wheel/track is positioned near or within the frame’s
`
`outline. EX1003, ¶¶45-47. The desire to both improve stability and treat road
`
`surfaces in confined spaces led to the use of a retractable wheel/track, well before
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 14 of 100 PageID #: 39647
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`
`2004. EX1005, 0051; EX1006, ¶7; EX1007, 3:11-21; EX1011, ¶¶7-8; EX1003,
`
`¶¶42-47. A retractable wheel/track, or “swing leg” allowed the machine’s
`
`wheel/track to move between (1) a projected position to widen the machine’s
`
`stance and (2) a retracted position to allow the machine to treat surfaces adjacent
`
`an obstacle, as shown below in Dubay. EX1003, ¶¶46-47; EX1005, 0051; EX1007,
`
`2:9-15; EX1011, ¶¶7-8.
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1007, FIGS. 2, 3 (annotated).
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 15 of 100 PageID #: 39648
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`
`
`
`Over time, artisans used a variety of swing leg configurations, but in each
`
`case they achieved the same basic goals: 1) project and retract the wheel/track; and
`
`2) orient the wheel/track relative to the machine frame. EX1003, ¶48.
`
`EX1005, FIG. AH-7, 0051 (annotated).
`
`
`
`As shown above, Volpe disclosed a manual process for moving its wheel
`
`between a projecting position and a retracted position. EX1005, 51. In this process,
`
`an operator was required to physically move the wheel from one position to the
`
`other. EX1003, ¶49; EX1007, 2:4-7; EX1011, ¶¶9-11; EX1014, ¶10. For example,
`
`the operator had to manually move the machine’s lifting column and its wheel.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 16 of 100 PageID #: 39649
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`
`EX1003, ¶50; EX1007, 2:4-7; EX1011, ¶¶9-11; EX1014, ¶10. But manually
`
`moving a wheel/track relative to the frame was inefficient, inconvenient, and
`
`unsafe. EX1003, ¶50.
`
`
`
`EX1005, FIG. D-4, 0100 (annotated).
`
`To address these disadvantages, prior-art work machines progressed by
`
`moving the wheel/track relative to the frame “in an automatized way.” EX1011,
`
`¶¶10-11; EX1003, ¶51. Implementing actuators to power wheel/track movement
`
`was a design choice well within the level of ordinary skill in the art. EX1003, ¶51.
`
`For example, the prior-art disclosed work machines with a first actuator, such as a
`
`hydraulic cylinder connected to the frame and the leg assembly to “reposition[] the
`
`leg assembly … relative to the frame.” EX1006, ¶42; EX1011, ¶¶24-25; EX1015,
`
`4:15-21; EX1021, 3:29-41; EX1003, ¶52. Accordingly, automating wheel/track
`
`movement relative to the machine’s frame was well-known. EX1003, ¶52.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 17 of 100 PageID #: 39650
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`
`Artisans also appreciated that, in pivoting a support arm, the wheel/track’s
`
`orientation should be maintained to properly steer the machine and avoid the
`
`wheel/track skidding. EX1003, ¶53; EX1007, 12:5-15; EX1008, 5:1-32. Solutions
`
`for maintaining the track/wheel’s orientation were well-known, whether the swing
`
`leg used a single support arm or a four-bar linkage. EX1003, ¶53. For a single
`
`support arm, artisans understood that the track/wheel “has to be mounted
`
`rotationally on the lifting column” to rotate the wheel/track while the swing leg
`
`pivots. EX1015, 1:57-61; EX1003, ¶54. A POSITA would have understood this
`
`approach applies to Volpe and would have understood that an operator manually
`
`rotates the wheel during the pivoting process. EX1005, 0051; EX1003, ¶55.
`
`Recognizing the need for automatically rotating wheel/track when moving between
`
`the projecting and retracted positions, the prior-art taught the use of a second
`
`actuator, such as a hydraulic cylinder connected to the lifting column “to pivot the
`
`track [or wheel] … about its leg.” EX1006, abstract; EX1003, ¶¶54-55. The second
`
`actuator was useful for both maintaining wheel direction and steering the wheel.
`
`EX1003, ¶¶54-55; EX1006, ¶¶48, 55.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 18 of 100 PageID #: 39651
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`
`EX1006, FIG. 3 (annotated).
`
`
`
`Recognizing the need for the leg assembly’s two actuators to operate in
`
`concert, artisans spatially separated the first and second actuators along the lifting
`
`column axis, as shown above in Figure 3 of Piccoli, to ensure that the first and
`
`second actuators may operate without interference. Id. Thus, spatially separating
`
`actuators along a lifting column axis of a work machine was also well-known
`
`before 2004. Id.
`
`
`
`As swing-leg technology developed, artisans implemented control systems
`
`to control the actuators based on sensor feedback. EX1008, 4:32-67; EX1037,
`
`1:19-49; EX1003, ¶¶56-58. A rotation sensor, such as Skotnikov’s sensor 155, was
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 19 of 100 PageID #: 39652
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`
`commonly used to monitor the wheel’s angular direction. EX1007, 8:23-27;
`
`EX1008, 4:4-12, 5:1-19. A pivot sensor, such as Skotnikov’s sensor 154, was also
`
`commonly used to monitor the wheel/track position. EX1008, 3:67-4:4, 5:1-19.
`
`EX1008, FIG. 6.
`
`
`
`Prior-art controllers maintained the wheel/track at its intended orientation by
`
`controlling actuation of steering and pivoting actuators based on rotation and pivot
`
`sensor feedback. EX1008, 5:1-34; EX1003, ¶¶59-65. Using sensor feedback also
`
`allowed prior-art controllers, such as McColl’s microprocessor, to steer the
`
`machine according to the Ackermann steering geometry principle. EX1010, 1:55-
`
`2:21.
`
`Thus, using sensor feedback to coordinate work machine actuator control
`
`was well-known before 2004. EX1003, ¶¶56-65.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 20 of 100 PageID #: 39653
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`
`III. THE ’995 PATENT
`The ’995 patent issued on April 28, 2009, from U.S. Application No.
`
`11/180,688, claiming priority to Italian Application No. TO2004A0499 filed July
`
`15, 2004. EX1001, (30).
`
`
`The challenged claims of the ’995 patent are directed to a “self-propelled
`
`machine.” EX1001, 1:5-7, 11:34, 14:31.
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 1.
`
`The work machine includes “a machine frame 12 supportable by … front
`
`ground engaging units 14, 16 [wheels] and rear ground engaging units 18, 20.
`
`EX1001, 3:34-48. The ’995 patent’s work machine 10 “includes a support device
`
`40 connected between the machine frame 12 and the one ground engaging unit 20”
`
`and a “support device 40 includ[ing] a lifting column 46 adapted to controllably
`
`raise and lower the … ground engaging unit 20 relative to the machine frame 12.”
`
`EX1001, 4:38-53.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 21 of 100 PageID #: 39654
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`
`EX1001, FIG. 2 (annotated).
`
`
`
`The work machine 10 includes a “first actuator 42 … adapted to move the
`
`one ground engaging unit 20 between the projecting position … and the retracted
`
`position.” EX1001, 4:40-44. The work machine 10 also includes a “second
`
`actuator 44 … adapted to maintain the same rotational direction of the one ground
`
`engaging unit 20.” EX1001, 4:44-48. The ’995 patent admits these elements are
`
`well-known. EX1001, 2:8-29.
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 22 of 100 PageID #: 39655
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`
`EX1001, FIG. 3 (annotated).
`
`
`
`Despite these well-known characteristics of milling machines—all prior to
`
`July 15, 2004—the ’995 patent alleges to have invented a machine having a first
`
`and second actuators linearly spaced apart along the lifting column axis. EX1001,
`
`11:49-53, 14:46-51. But this actuator spatial arrangement was implemented in
`
`similar work machines, including at least Piccoli. EX1003, ¶¶67-75. Thus, the
`
`claim elements that capture the ’995 patent’s alleged inventive concept were well-
`
`known to a POSITA. Id., ¶75.
`
`
`During prosecution, the Office issued two office actions before ultimately
`
`allowing the claims. See generally EX1002. The filed application included 64 total
`
`claims, of which claims 1, 21, 38, and 47 were independent. EX1002, 21-34.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 23 of 100 PageID #: 39656
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`
`Unlike claims 1 and 38, originally filed claims 21 and 47 (issued claims 18 and 45)
`
`did not recite a rotary actuator. EX1002, 24-25, 30-31.
`
`In the second Office Action, the Office rejected most claims as obvious over
`
`Dubay, in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,558,758 to Littman. EX1002, 278-282.
`
`Acknowledging that Dubay does not disclose a rotary actuator, the Examiner relied
`
`on Littman for this teaching. EX1002, 280-281.
`
`In its Reply, Applicant amended claim 1, specifying that the actuators are
`
`located at different portions of the lifting column. EX1002, 285-287. Applicant
`
`also amended method claim 38 (issued claim 36), specifying that the first and
`
`second actuators are linearly spaced apart—the same spatial arrangement recited in
`
`independent claims 21 and 47. EX1002, 288-302. Criticizing the Examiner’s
`
`obviousness rationale, Applicant contended that the Examiner was
`
`“inappropriate[ly] piecing together” Littman’s rotary actuator with Dubay because
`
`Littman’s machine lacked a lifting column, and therefore, failed to teach how a
`
`rotary actuator can be implemented with a lifting column. EX1002, 305.
`
`Ultimately, the Office issued a Notice of Allowability without providing
`
`reasons for allowance. EX1002, 314-319; EX1003, ¶¶76-82.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A POSITA is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all
`
`pertinent art, thinks along conventional wisdom in the art, and is a person of
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 439-3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 24 of 100 PageID #: 39657
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995
`
`ordinary creativity. A POSITA in the technical field of the ’995 patent (mobile
`
`construction machines) would have had knowledge of the technical literature
`
`concerning machine design, including hydraulic and mechanical systems and their
`
`use to steer and position wheels or tracks, before July 2004. EX1003, ¶¶35-36.
`
`Here, a POSITA would typically have had: (i) a bachelor’s degree (or
`
`equivalent) in mechanical engineering (or a similar field) and at least two years of
`
`experience working on mobile construction machine design (or in a similar field);
`
`or (ii) seven years of experience working on mobile construction machine design
`
`(or in a similar field). Id. A POSITA may have worked as part of a
`
`multidisciplinary team and drawn upon not only his or her own skills, but of others
`
`on the team, e.g., to solve a given problem. Id.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Generally, the cla