Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`Entered: August 30, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BOYDSTUN EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURING, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COTTRELL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, JAMES A. WORTH, and
`JAMES J. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`Entered: August 30, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BOYDSTUN EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURING, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COTTRELL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, JAMES A. WORTH, and
`JAMES J. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Boydstun Equipment Manufacturing, LLC (“Boydstun”),
`filed a Petition (“Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–8 (the
`“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,585,140 B1 (Ex. 1001, the
`“’140 patent”). Paper 2. Patent Owner, Cottrell, Inc. (“Cottrell”), did not
`file a Preliminary Response to the Petition.1 We have jurisdiction under
`35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The Board institutes trial on
`behalf of the Director. 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a).
`To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the
`information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (“Inter
`partes review shall not be instituted for a ground of unpatentability unless the
`Board decides that the petition supporting the ground would demonstrate that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged in
`the petition is unpatentable.”). For the reasons set forth below, upon
`considering the Petition and evidence, we conclude that the information
`presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Boydstun
`will prevail with respect to claims 1–8, and we institute inter partes review
`on all Challenged Claims and all grounds.
`Our factual findings and legal conclusions at this stage of the
`proceeding are based on the evidentiary record developed, thus far. This
`
`1 Under our rules, filing a Preliminary Response is optional. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.107 (“The patent owner may file a preliminary response to the
`petition.”) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`
`decision to institute trial is not a final decision as to patentability of the
`claims for which inter partes review is instituted. Our final decision will be
`based on the full record developed during trial.
`A. Related Matters
`Boydstun indicates that the ’140 patent is involved in district court
`litigation in the District of Oregon, in a case styled Boydstun Equip. Mfg. v.
`Cottrell, Inc., 3:16-cv-790 (D. Or.). Pet. 1; see also Paper 6, 1 (identifying
`the litigation as the only related matter).
`B. The ’140 Patent
`This section provides an overview of the ’140 patent and an overview
`of the prosecution history of the application that matured into the ’140
`patent.
`1. Overview of the ’140 Patent
`The ’140 patent, titled “Vehicle and Cargo Transport Ratcheting Tie
`Down Apparatus and System,” issued September 8, 2009, with claims 1–8.
`Ex. 1001, (54), (45), 5:30–6:38. The ’140 patent is directed to a ratcheting
`tie down system that replaces a conventional ratchet with a dual component
`that includes a ratchet gear and a ratchet head with cross holes for receiving
`a tie down bar. Id. at 2:52–56. Figures 2 and 4 of the ’140 patent are
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00962
`
`IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`
`FIG. 3
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`115
`
` 125
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`
`
`Figure 3 depicts “a top perspective view of [a] prior art vehicle trailer
`tie down system” and Figure 4 depicts “an exploded perspective view of a
`ratcheting tie down apparatus in accordance with exemplary embodiments”
`of the invention of the ’140 patent. Ex. 1001, 2:29–33. As seen in Figure 3,
`strap 115 contacts the wheel of a vehicle to hold the vehicle in place on the
`platform of a vehicle trailer. See id. at 1:15–18; see also Fig. 2 (depicting
`strap 115 around wheel 106 of vehicle 105 to secure the vehicle to platform
`110 for a prior art system). Strap 115 is secured at one end at fixed hook
`125 and the other end at shaft 140. Id. at 2:30–36. In the prior art system of
`Figure 3, ratchet 145 and pawl 150 are used to tighten strap 115 around shaft
`140 to secure vehicle 105 to platform 110. Tie down bar 170 is inserted into
`cross-holes 149 of gear casting 146 (part of ratchet 145) and force is exerted
`on the bar to turn the gear. Id. at 1:38–50. According to the ’140 patent, in
`the typical prior art system as depicted in Figure 3:
`tie down 170 bar can be rotated about 60 degrees at a time. If
`this rotation does not take up sufficient slack in the chain or strap,
`then the tie down bar 170 is pulled out of the current cross-hole
`149, reinserted into the next convenient cross hole 149, and
`rotated again. This action may be repeated many times.
`Id. at 1:52–57.
` Apparatus 400 depicted in Figure 4 “allows an operator to insert the
`tie down bar once and tighten [the strap] to the desired tension without
`continually reinserting the tie down bar.” Ex. 1001, 2:54–56. Apparatus
`400 includes ratchet gear 405 with engagement teeth 406 configured to
`engage a pawl mechanism (not depicted in Figure 4). Id. at 2:63–65.
`Ratchet gear 405 includes ramped pockets 407 positioned on inner face 415
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`
`at a fixed radial distance from rotational axis 401, with ramped pockets 407
`including ramp surface 408 that defines wall 411 within each ramped pocket
`407. Id. at 2:65–3:6.
`Apparatus 400 also includes ratchet head 420 having cross-holes 421,
`which are positioned around its circumference and perpendicular to
`rotational axis 401. Ex. 1001, 3:7–10. Ratchet head 420 includes
`depressions 422 positioned along inner face 423 at a fixed radial distance
`from rotational axis 401—the same radial distance as ramped pockets 407.
`Id. at 3:10–15. Depressions 422 are cylindrical holes that receive resilient
`bodies 425 and drive bodies 430, with drive bodies 430 positioned more to
`the exterior of depressions 422 than resilient bodies 425. Id. at 3:16–23.
`Drive bodies 430 are positioned in ramped pockets 407 when ratchet
`gear 405 and ratchet head 420 are affixed to one another, such as with
`retaining pin 450. Ex. 1001, 3:24–37. The assembled ratchet gear 405 and
`ratchet head 420 is then affixed to end 481 of shaft 480. Id. at 3:37–39.
`Ratchet head 420 is configured to rotate as a single unit with ratchet gear
`405 and shaft 480 when rotating to tighten a strap connected to shaft 480
`(such as strap 115) and further configured to rotate independently with
`respect to ratchet gear 405 and shaft 480 when rotated in a reverse direction.
`Id. at 3:45–49.
`When drive bodies 430 are inserted into lower most portions 410 of
`ramped pockets 407, an operator inserts a tie down bar into cross-holes 421
`and rotates to tighten a strap on shaft 480. Ex. 1001, 3:64–4:2. In this
`situation of forward rotation, there is no relative motion of the assembled
`ratchet gear 405 and ratchet head 420 because drive bodies 430 press
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`
`laterally against each respective wall 411 within each ramped pocket 407.
`Id. at 4:2–7. If this forward rotation does not sufficiently tighten the strap,
`then the operator maintains the tie down bar in the same cross-hole 421 and
`rotates ratchet head 420 in the opposite rotational direction, resulting in
`relative rotational movement between ratchet gear 405 and ratchet head 420
`(“freewheeling”). Id. at 4:9–16. During freewheeling, drive bodies 430
`move along ramp surface 408 of each ramped pocket 407 from lower-most
`portions 410 to upper most portions 409 to inner face 415 then into lower-
`most portions 410 of the adjacent ramped pocket 407 and so on until the
`operator stops rotating ratchet head 420. Id. at 4:16–29. The up-and-down
`movement of drive bodies 430 is facilitated by compressing and
`decompressing resilient bodies 425. Id. at 4:30–34. When the operator is
`ready to further tighten the strap, the operator reapplies the force in the
`forward direction. Id. at 4:34–40. The operator repeats this forward
`rotation-freewheeling sequence as necessary to sufficiently tighten the strap.
`Id. at 4:40–41.
`2. Overview of the Prosecution History of the ’140 Patent
`The application that matured into the ’140 patent was prosecuted
`under the Patent Office’s Accelerated Examination program, such that the
`application was accompanied by an Accelerated Examination Support
`Document (“AESD”). See Ex. 1006. In the AESD, the applicant discussed
`US 2006/0013667 A1 (“Ruan”—Ex. 1003) as one of the references deemed
`most closely related to the applicant’s claims and provided statements
`regarding how Ruan does or does not disclose certain claim limitations. See
`Ex. 1006, 2–7. During prosecution, the applicant distinguished Ruan from
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`
`the subject matter of independent claim 1 by arguing that claim 1 required an
`inner face of a ratchet gear to be positioned in opposition to and in
`mechanical contact with an inner face of a ratchet head but that Ruan’s
`ratchet gear and ratchet head were at separate ends of a shaft. See Ex. 1008,
`6.
`
`C. Challenged Claims
`The Petition challenges all eight claims of the ’140 patent. Claim 1,
`which we reproduce below, is the sole independent claim.
`1.
`A ratcheting tie down system for a vehicle transporter
`having one or more vehicle platforms, the system comprising:
`a ratchet assembly affixed to an end of a tie down shaft
`having a longitudinal axis, the tie down shaft being affixed to one
`of the one or more vehicle platforms;
`a pawl mechanism coupled to the ratchet assembly,
`wherein the ratchet assembly comprises:
`
`a ratchet gear having engagement teeth coupled to
`the pawl mechanism;
`
`a ratchet head coupled to the ratchet gear,
`wherein an inner face of the ratchet gear is positioned in
`opposition to and in mechanical contact with an inner face of the
`ratchet head, and
`wherein the ratchet gear, the ratchet head and the shaft are
`configured to rotate as a single integral unit when rotated in a
`forward direction about the longitudinal axis, and the ratchet
`head is configured to rotate with respect to the ratchet gear and
`the shaft when the ratchet head is rotated in a reverse direction
`about the longitudinal axis.
`Ex. 1001, 5:30–6:10.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`
`D. The Applied References
`Boydstun’s asserted grounds of unpatentability for the Challenged
`Claims rely on the following references:
`Ruan
`US 2006/0013667 A1 Jan. 19, 2006
`Cottrell ’2752 US 5,314,275
`May 24, 1994
`Boice
`US 6,824,121 B2
`Nov. 30, 2004
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Boydstun asserts two grounds of unpatentability for the Challenged
`Claims: (1) claims 1–8 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Ruan and Cottrell ’275; and (2) claims 1–8 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Boice and Ruan. Pet. 8.
`
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Boydstun’s declarant, George Clark, testifies that a person having
`ordinary skill in the art to which the ’140 patent pertains “would hold a
`bachelor of science degree in Mechanical Engineering” or, alternatively,
`“would have developed skill in mechanical devices through a number of
`years of experience working on the design and construction of mechanical
`devices.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14–15. Mr. Clark further declares that a person
`having ordinary skill in the art “would be familiar with ratcheting
`mechanisms (as used with tie-down straps) and familiar with standard
`ratchet wrenches available at any tool supply outlet.” Id. ¶ 16. Mr. Clark
`
`
`2 We designate this reference as “Cottrell ’275” so as not to confuse it with
`the Patent Owner’s entity name.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`
`bases his opinion of the level of ordinary skill in the art of the ’140 patent on
`his “experiences of the past 36 years working with and leading engineers
`and other technically focused individuals on mechanism development
`projects.” Id. ¶ 13.
`Factual indicators of the level of ordinary skill in the art include “the
`various prior art approaches employed, the types of problems encountered in
`the art, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of
`the technology involved, and the educational background of those actively
`working in the field.” Jacobson Bros., Inc. v. United States, 512 F.2d 1065,
`1071 (Ct. Cl. 1975); see also Orthopedic Equip. Co., Inc. v. United States,
`702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting with approval Jacobson
`Bros.). We find, based on our review of the record before us, that Mr.
`Clark’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is
`consistent with the evidence at this stage of the proceeding, including the
`asserted prior art and, for the purposes of this Decision only, we adopt Mr.
`Clark’s definition.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed
`Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142–46 (2016) (concluding that
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) “represents a reasonable exercise of the rulemaking
`authority that Congress delegated to the Patent Office”). Under the broadest
`reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`
`art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Also, we are careful not to read a
`particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if
`the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See In re Van Geuns,
`988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[L]imitations are not to be read into
`the claims from the specification.”).
`Boydstun provides explicit constructions for two claim terms: (1) “in
`mechanical contact with;” and (2) “coupled.” See Pet. 9–12. We determine
`that, at this stage of the proceeding, no claim terms need to be explicitly
`construed to resolve the parties’ controversies. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing explicitly
`only those claim terms in controversy and only to the extent necessary to
`resolve the controversy).
`The parties are hereby given notice that claim construction, in general,
`is an issue to be addressed at trial and any claim construction implicitly
`addressed in this Decision is preliminary in nature. Claim construction will
`be determined at the close of all the evidence and after any hearing. The
`parties are expected to assert all of their claim construction arguments and
`evidence in the Petition, Patent Owner’s Response, Petitioner’s Reply, or
`otherwise during trial, as permitted by our rules.
`C. Overview of the Applied References
`The Petition relies on three prior art references in its asserted grounds
`of unpatentability—Ruan, Cottrell ’275, and Boice.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`
`1. Ruan
`Ruan, titled “Rapid Rotating Device for Ratchet Belt Shaft,”
`published January 19, 2006. Ex. 1003, (54), (43). Ruan generally “relates to
`a tie-down, and more particularly to a ratchet tie-down.” Id. ¶ 2. Ruan’s
`Figures 1 and 2 are reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts “a mechanical schematic of the rapid rotating device
`for a ratchet.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 14. Figure 2 depicts “a side-view diagram of a
`fixed base for a rapid rotating device.” Id. ¶ 15.
`Ruan’s rapid rotating device includes belt shaft 3 that accommodates a
`belt for securing goods to a vehicle, fixed base 1, and rotating body 2. Ex.
`1003 ¶¶ 3–4, 20. Adjacent to frame 4 on the side of shaft 3 opposite fixed
`base 1 and rotating body 2 is a gear with engagement teeth (not numbered in
`Figure 1), which engages a pawl (not depicted). See id., claim 7 (claiming a
`first ratchet wheel and a first pawl that engages the first ratchet wheel).
`Rotating body 2 is attached to fixed base 1 using bolt-down screws 11
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`
`through locating plate 10. Id. ¶ 21. Rotating body 2 includes crowbar hole 9
`to accommodate a crowbar used to rotate shaft 3. Id. ¶¶ 5, 22.
`Fixed base 1 includes six slide grooves 5, with each slide groove 5
`including straight side 52, which is perpendicular to the side surface of fixed
`base 1, and inclined side 51, which is inclined toward the rotating direction
`of rotating body 2. Ex. 1003 ¶ 22, Fig. 2. Rotating body 2 includes six
`spring holes 6 that correspond to the six slide grooves 5. Id. ¶ 23. Disposed
`into each spring hole 6 is spring 7 and pushing-pin 8, with pushing-pin 8
`sized to fit within slide groove 5. Id. “When the rotating body 2 is rotated
`to the location where spring hole 6 is mated with slide groove 5, the
`pushing-pin 8 will be pushed into the slide groove 5 by the acting force of
`spring 7.” Id.
`In operation, when rotating body 2 is turned in one direction, pushing-
`pin 8 is pushed up along inclined face 51 of slide groove 5 until pushing-pin
`8 is pressed against the side surface of fixed base 1. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24. As
`rotating body continues to turn in that direction, pushing-pin 8 continues to
`slide along inclined face 51 of adjacent slide grooves 5. When rotating body
`2 is turned in the opposite direction, pushing-pin 8 is blocked by straight
`face 52 of slide groove 5, and unable to slide out of groove 5. Id. In this
`direction, the combination of rotating body 2 and fixed base 1 becomes a
`link-drive system, driving belt shaft 3. Id. Accordingly, rotating body 2
`drives fixed body 1 and shaft 3 when rotating body 2 is turned in one of the
`directions only. Id. ¶ 25. “Thus if a crowbar is inserted into the crowbar
`hole 9 and the crowbar is rotated in reciprocating fashion, the belt shaft 3
`will be turned to tighten the belt.” Id.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`
`2. Cottrell ’275
`Cottrell ’275, titled “Safety Tie-Down Roller,” issued May 24, 1994.
`Ex. 1004, (54), (45). Cottrell ’275 is generally directed “to the field of tie-
`down rollers for car carrier trucks and trailers.” Id. at 1:6–7. Cottrell ’275’s
`Figure 11 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 11 depicts “a sectional top cutaway view of [Cottrell ’275’s]
`invention having a coil spring in torsional spring relationship to a pawl
`axle.” Ex. 1004, 3:43–45. Tie-down ratchet gear 8 includes bar wrench
`apertures 15 a wrench sleeve 16 at the proximal side of ratchet teeth 17. Ex.
`1004, 4:58–60. Torsion coil spring 37 is anchored to spring housing 38
`which is attached to underwall 11 and directs pressure against pawl shaft 39
`which is in pivotal contact with underwall 11 and the ends of spring housing
`38. Id. at 7:35–40. A ratchet pawl (not numbered in Figure 11 but indicated
`with reference numeral 9 elsewhere in Cottrell ’275) is attached to pawl
`shaft 39 such that torsion coil spring 37 causes pawl 9 to engage ratchet
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`
`teeth 17, preventing unwinding of tie-down rod 7 when the pawl is engaged
`with the teeth. Id. at 7:40–43; see id. at 5:17–22.
`Cottrell ’275 further discloses that a variety of tools may be used to
`drive ratchet gear 8, including a hexagonal or other axial wrench, a bar
`wrench fitted into apertures 15, or a ratchet wrench. See Ex. 1004, 8:16–23;
`see also Fig. 19 (depicting square wrench adapter orifice 48 for a ratchet
`wrench).
`3. Boice
`Boice, titled “Wheel Securing Device,” issued November 30, 2004.
`Ex. 1005, (54), (45). Boice is generally directed “to a securing device for
`retaining an automobile wheel to a dolly when the automobile is being
`towed with the front wheels of the automobile raised off the ground.” Id. at
`1:7–10. Boice’s Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts the wheel securing device constructed on a U-shaped
`frame 11. Ex. 1005, 2:14–18, 2:66–3:2. Shaft 23 rotates on frame 11. Id. at
`3:7. Mounted on shaft 23 adjacent to outside panel 17 of frame 11 is ratchet
`gear 19 (numbering not shown in Figure 1) with latch (or pawl) 35. Id. at
`3:12–13, 3:27–28. Latch 35 includes finger 39 that prevents ratchet gear 19
`from rotating in one direction but allows rotation in the opposite direction
`(rotation is permitted in the counter-clockwise direction as depicted in
`Figure 1). Id. at 3:28–36.
`At the end of shaft 23 is attached drive wheel 41. Ex. 1005, 3:42–43.
`Drive wheel 41 includes rod openings 43, such that, “[b]y placing a rod 45
`into a rod opening 43, the drive wheel 41 can be rotated and thus the shaft 23
`turned.” Id. at 3:44–48. Drive wheel 41 also includes nut 47, by which a
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`
`standard socket wrench can be used as an alternative to (or in conjunction
`with) rod 45 to turn drive wheel 41. Id. at 3:48–52.
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Boydstun’s two asserted grounds of unpatentability of the Challenged
`Claims are based on obviousness.
`Section 103(a) [of 35 U.S.C.] forbids issuance of a patent when
`“the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would
`have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
`having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`pertains.”
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary
`skill in the art; and (4) when available, secondary considerations, such as
`commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, and failure of others. See
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We address these
`underlying factual issues with respect to each asserted ground, below.3
`1. Ground 1—Claims 1–8 over Ruan and Cottrell ’275
`Boydstun asserts that claims 1–8 of the ’140 patent are obvious over
`Ruan and Cottrell ’275.
`
`
`3 We address the level of ordinary skill in the art in Section II.A., supra.
`The record does not include any evidence of secondary considerations at this
`point in the proceeding.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`
`a. Independent claim 1
`i. Boydstun’s proposed combination of Ruan and Cottrell ’275
`Boydstun contends that Ruan discloses much of the subject matter of
`claim 1, and that the only difference between the claimed subject matter and
`Ruan is the requirement that the primary and secondary ratchets be on the
`same side of the spool shaft. Pet. 194; see also Ex. 1001, 5:39–6:3 (requiring
`that the ratcheting tie-down system include “a ratchet head coupled to the
`ratchet gear, wherein an inner face of the ratchet gear is positioned in
`opposition to and in mechanical contact with an inner face of the ratchet
`head”). Boydstun further contends that Cottrell ’275 discloses a primary
`ratchet with a pawl that prevents the tie-down system spool from unwinding.
`Pet. 19. Boydstun also contends that Cottrell ’275 expressly teaches a
`person having ordinary skill in the art may find it useful to employ a
`conventional ratchet wrench (a secondary ratchet) to rotate the primary
`ratchet to tighten a tie-down strap attached to the system spool shaft. Id. at
`19–20.
`Boydstun explains that “Cottrell [’275] teaches that the first and
`second ratchets need to be on the outboard side of a car hauler to be
`accessible to the operator.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 39 and quoting Ex.
`1004, 1:29–34); see also Ex. 1004, 1:26–33 (disclosing that the location of
`the wrench for rotating the system shaft (“tie down bar”) and ratchet wheel
`
`
`4 Boydstun uses the term “primary ratchet” to mean a ratchet gear with
`engagement teeth for engaging a pawl and the term “secondary ratchet” to
`mean the device for rotating a shaft to tighten a strap or chain of a tie-down
`system. See Pet. 2–3.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`
`with teeth-engaging pawl is the outside of the car carrier and outside of each
`car being carried on the car carrier).
`Boydstun reasons that a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`have been motivated to modify Ruan with Cottrell ’275’s teachings to locate
`both a primary and secondary ratchet on the same end of the system spool
`shaft. Pet. 20. Boydstun contends that Cottrell ’275 suggests this
`configuration by including the capability to employ a conventional ratchet
`wrench in contact with a primary ratchet and by the express teaching of the
`usefulness of employing a ratchet wrench to drive the primary ratchet head.
`Id. at 20–21. Further, as Boydstun explains, Cottrell ’275 teaches driving
`the ratchet wheel and accessing the pawl that engages the ratchet wheel from
`the outside of the car carrier. See Ex. 1004, 1:26–33. As Mr. Clark
`declares:
`
`A person with ordinary skill in the art would know that
`when securing a vehicle or other goods, the operator of a vehicle
`transporter needs convenient access to both the means for
`tightening the winch and the means for loosening the winch from
`the side of the vehicle transporter. For example, the operator
`may need to rapidly switch between tightening and loosening of
`the securing means (i.e. strap or chain). If the operator notices a
`twist in the chain or strap while tightening, he/she then needs to
`release the tension so the twist can be alleviated. Therefore, safe
`operation of a tie-down mechanism dictates that the operator
`needs to have convenient and ready access to both ratchets.
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 40; see also id. ¶ 41 (describing a second scenario where an
`operator would benefit from having both the primary and secondary ratchets
`on the outboard side of a car carrier).
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`
`Boydstun further reasons that its proposed modification represents the
`combination of familiar elements that, once modified, would yield a
`predictable result. Pet. 21; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 43 (“Relocating the Ruan
`primary ratchet to the same end of the spool as the secondary ratchet is a
`predictable use of these prior art elements according to their established
`functions.”), ¶ 44 (“A person having ordinary skill in the art would
`anticipate that the combination of Cottrell [’275] and Ruan would be
`successful.”). Boydstun contends that its proposed modification “arranges
`known elements with no change in their respective functions. When
`arranged on the same end of the spool, the primary and secondary ratchets
`each serve the same functions as they do in Ruan.” Pet. 22.
`We are persuaded, on the current record, that Boydstun has provided
`sufficient reasoning with a rational underpinning in its proposed
`modification of Ruan based on the teachings of Cottrell ’275. See KSR Int’l
`Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006))
`(“[O]bviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
`statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some
`rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).
`ii. Limitation-by-limitation analysis
`The preamble of independent claim 1 recites “[a] ratcheting tie down
`system for a vehicle transporter having one or more vehicle platforms.” Ex.
`1001, 5:30–31. Boydstun contends that the preamble to claim 1 is not
`limiting. Pet. 23. Boydstun further identifies Cottrell ’275 as disclosing a
`ratcheting tie-down system for a vehicle transporter. Pet 24 (citing Ex.
`1004, 1:6–7). We find that Boydstun has made the requisite showing in the
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`
`Petition, at this stage of the proceeding, that Cottrell ’275 discloses a
`ratcheting tie down system for a vehicle transporter having one or more
`vehicle platforms as recited in claim 1’s preamble. See also Ex. 1004, 1:16–
`2:8 (discussing the prior art tie-down systems for car carrier trucks and
`trailers); Ex. 1001, Figs. 1–3 (identifying prior art tie-down systems intended
`to be used on vehicle transporters having one or more vehicle platforms). In
`view of this finding, we need not reach the issue of whether the preamble of
`claim 1 is limiting at this stage of the proceeding.5
`Claim 1 further recites “a ratchet assembly affixed to an end of a tie
`down shaft having a longitudinal axis, the tie down shaft being affixed to
`one of the one or more vehicle platforms.” Ex. 1001, 5:32–34 (the “ratchet
`assembly” limitation). Boydstun contends that Ruan, as modified by
`Cottrell ’275, discloses the recited ratchet assembly. Pet. 24. Specifically,
`Boydstun contends that Ruan discloses “a spool with a tie-down shaft” with
`“[o]ne end of the tie-down shaft [having] a primary ratchet and the other end
`of the spool [having] a secondary ratchet[,] [t]he tie-down shaft [being]
`affixed to the bed of a flatbed truck.” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1003, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 2–
`7; Ex. 1002 ¶ 26). With respect to Cottrell ’275, Boydstun contends that it
`discloses “a primary ratchet affixed to one end of a tie-down shaft” and that
`
`
`5 As we indicated in Section II.B, above, the parties are expected to assert all
`of their claim construction arguments and evidence in the Petition, Patent
`Owner’s Response, Petitioner’s Reply, or otherwise during trial, as
`permitted by our rules, including whether the preamble of claim 1 is
`limiting.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`
`“[t]he tie down shaft in Cottrell [’275] is affixed to a vehicle platform on an
`automobile transporter.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 11; Ex. 1002 ¶ 29).
`We find that Boydstun has made the requisite showing in the Petition,
`at this stage of the proceeding, that Ruan, as modified by Cottrell ’275,
`discloses the subject matter of the “ratchet assembly” limitation.
`Claim 1 further recites “a pawl mechanism coupled to the ratchet
`assembly, wherein the ratchet assembly comprises: a ratchet gear having
`engagement teeth coupled to the pawl mechanism.” Ex. 1001, 5:35–38 (the
`“pawl mechanism” limitation). Boydstun contends that both Ruan and
`Cottrell ’275 disclose a ratchet gear having engagement teeth coupled to a
`pawl mechanism. See Pet. 25–26 (referencing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27, 29; Ex. 1004,
`Fig. 10). Mr. Clark explains that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`would understand that Ruan teaches “a ratchet gear with teeth [that] engage
`with a pawl to prevent the spool from unwinding.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 27.
`We find that Boydstun has made the requisite showing in the Petition,
`at this stage of the proceeding, that Ruan and Cottrell ’275 disclose the
`subject matter of the “pawl mechanism” limitation.
`Claim 1 further recites “a ratchet head coupled to the ratchet gear,
`wherein an inner face of the ratchet gear is positioned in opposition to and in
`mechanical contact with an inner face of the ratchet head.” Ex. 1001, 5:39–
`6:3 (the “mechanical contact” limitation). Boydstun contends that, by
`“[c]ombining Cottrell [’275] with Ruan, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would move the first ratchet from the opposite end of the spool to the same
`end of the spool as the secondary ratchet.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶42, in
`which Mr. Clark declares that “[t]he only change necessary to modify Ruan
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00962
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`
`to create the device encompassed by claim 1 of the ’140 patent is to move
`the primary ratchet to the same end of the spool as the secondary ratchet as
`taught by Cottrell [’275].”). Boydstun explains that “[b]y adding teeth to the
`Ruan fixed base, the Ruan fixed base would become the claimed ratchet gear
`coupled wi
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
