Trials@uspto.gov Paper 51
`571-272-7822
` Entered: December 3, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`NAUTILUS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ICON HEALTH & FITNESS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`Before GEORGE R. HOSKINS, TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, and
`JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
` Entered: December 3, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`NAUTILUS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ICON HEALTH & FITNESS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`Before GEORGE R. HOSKINS, TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, and
`JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`On May 12, 2017, Nautilus, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper
`2, “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–20 (“the challenged
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,616,276 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’276 patent”) on
`the following grounds:
`
`References
`
`Wu1 and Jones2
`
`Wu and Webb3
`
`Wu, Watson4, and Jones
`
`Zhou5 and Jones
`
`Zhou and Webb
`
`Zhou, Loach6, and Jones
`
`Basis
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Claims Challenged
`1–4, 10
`
`5, 6
`
`7–9, 11–20
`
`1–4, 10
`
`5, 6
`
`7–9, 11–20
`
`On September 5, 2017, ICON Health & Fitness Inc. (“Patent Owner”)
`filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0171192 A1, pub. Sept. 11,
`2003 (Ex. 1002).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 4,798,378, iss. Jan. 17, 1989 (Ex. 1005).
`3 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0017918 A1, pub. Jan. 23,
`2003 (Ex. 1003).
`4 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0234840 A1, pub. Oct. 19,
`2006 (Ex. 1004).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 8,517,899 B2, iss. Aug. 27, 2013 (Ex. 1006).
`6 W.O. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/015096 A2, pub. Feb. 8,
`2007 (Ex. 1007).
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`
`On December 4, 2017, the Board instituted an inter partes review.
`Paper 7 (“Dec.”). We initially instituted review for a subset of the asserted
`claims and asserted grounds. See Dec. 32. Specifically, we determined
`based on the preliminary record that Petitioner had demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to claims 1–4 and 10 as
`obvious over Wu and Jones; claims 5 and 6 as obvious over Wu and Webb;
`claims 7, 9, and 11–20 as obvious over Wu, Watson, and Jones; claim 8 as
`obvious over Wu, Watson, Jones, and Street7; claims 1–4 and 10 as obvious
`over Zhou and Jones; and claims 5 and 6 as obvious over Zhou and Webb.
`Dec. 32.
`Also on December 4, 2017, we issued a Scheduling Order for the
`proceeding. Paper 8.
`Subsequently on April 27, 2018, pursuant to the holding in SAS Inst.,
`Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355–57 (2018), we issued an Order (Paper
`19) modifying our institution decision to institute on all of the challenged
`claims and all of the grounds presented in the Petition.
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner did not file a Patent Owner
`Response to the Petition. Petitioner did not seek to address further any of
`the claims or grounds from the Petition added to the proceeding pursuant to
`SAS.
`
`However, during the proceeding, Patent Owner filed a Motion to
`Amend (Paper 17, “Mot. Amend”) on March 5, 2018. On May 7, 2018, we
`issued an Order (Paper 20) authorizing a 10-page extension of the page limit
`for Petitioner’s opposition to the Motion to Amend and deferred action on a
`
`7 U.S. Patent No. 4,625,962, iss. Dec. 2, 1986 (Ex. 1008, Appendix V,
`“Street”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`request by Petitioner for authorization for surreplies. On June 4, 2018,
`Petitioner filed an Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (Paper
`21, “Opposition” or “Opp.”). Patent Owner obtained authorization from the
`Board, by email, for a corresponding 10-page extension for Patent Owner’s
`reply thereto. On July 5, 2018, Patent Owner filed a Reply to Petitioner’s
`Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motions to Amend (Paper 28, “Motion
`Reply”).8
`On July 12, 2018, after conferring with the Board, the parties filed a
`joint stipulation for amending the scheduling order to provide for further
`briefing by Petitioner. Paper 32. On July 20, 2018, we issued an Order
`(Paper 35) authorizing Petitioner to file a limited Motion Surreply with the
`deposition transcript of Dr. Ganaja according to the stipulation of the parties.
`On August 1, 2018, Petitioner filed a Motion Surreply (Paper 36)9 and the
`deposition transcript of Dr. Ganaja (Ex. 1020).
`After a further conference call with the parties on August 3, 2018 held
`at the request of Patent Owner, we issued an Order (Paper 38) on August 7,
`2018, striking portions of the Motion Surreply as contrary to the stipulation
`of the parties. Paper 38, 3–4. Also pursuant to the Order, Patent Owner
`filed a list of purportedly improper arguments in the Motion Surreply on
`August 8, 2018. Paper 39.
`
`
`8 Patent Owner filed a separate Motion to Amend in each of Cases IPR2017-
`01407 and -1408, in each case proposing substitute claims numbered 21 and
`22. Petitioner filed the same Opposition and Patent Owner filed the same
`Motion Reply in each of IPR2017-01407 and -4108. We have written
`separate opinions in order to avoid confusion, e.g., because the proposed
`substitute claims in IPR2017-01407 and -1408 have overlapping numbering.
`9 Petitioner’s Motion Surreply applies to both IPR2017-01407 and -1408.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`
`On August 10, 2018, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude
`Evidence (Paper 42, “Mot. Excl.”). On August 21, 2018, Petitioner filed an
`Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 44). On August 22,
`2018, Patent Owner filed a Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 46).
`On August 29, 2018, the Board held a single oral hearing covering
`IPR2017-01407, IPR2017-01408, and IPR2017-01363, a transcript of which
`has been entered in the record. Paper 50 (“Tr.”).
`We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by
`a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 of the ’276 patent are
`unpatentable. The motion to amend is denied.
`A.
`Related Proceedings
`The parties state that there are no related district court proceedings.
`Pet. 2; see also Paper 3, 1. The parties note as related IPR2017-01407,
`which also challenges the ’276 patent. Pet. 2–3; Paper 3, 1. In addition,
`Petitioner identifies as related for case management purposes IPR2017-
`01363. Id.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`
`B. The ’276 Patent (Ex. 1001)10
`The ’276 patent issued from the ’088 Application11, which is a
`continuation of the ’793 Application12, which was based on ’007 Provisional
`Application13. Ex. 1001, [21], [60], [63]; Ex. 1009, 3.
`The ’276 patent is titled “Strength Training Apparatus With Flywheel
`and Related Methods” and relates to “strength training equipment including
`a flywheel and to related methods.” Ex. 1001, [54], 1:15–17.
`The ’276 patent describes a difficulty in integrating aerobic and
`anaerobic activities, i.e., it is more difficult to track or calculate calories
`burned when doing strength training exercises. Id. at 1:56–63. The ’276
`patent discloses a strength-training device that may include a cable and
`pulley system, a flywheel with a magnetic brake to provide resistance, and a
`torque sensor. See id. at 2:20–34. The flywheel may be combined with a
`drive mechanism and a one-way clutch that exerts a force on the flywheel in
`one direction when a user pulls a cable. Id. at 2:53–67. The device of the
`’276 patent may also include a console in communication with the magnetic
`brake to adjust the resistance and to display the amount of work performed.
`Id. at 2:39–52.
`
`10 Petitioner has averred relation of the ’276 patent back to a (pre-AIA)
`provisional application in satisfaction of the certification requirement of 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104(a). See Pet. 5.
`11 U.S. Patent Application No. 15/019,088, filed Feb. 9, 2016 (Ex. 1009, 1–
`36, “the ’088 Application).
`12 U.S. Patent Application No. 14/213,793, filed Mar. 14, 2014 (Ex. 2005,
`Ex. 2006 (drawings), “the ’793 Application”).
`13 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/786,007, filed Mar. 14, 2013
`(Ex. 2003, Ex. 2004 (drawings); see also Ex. 1010, “the ’007 Provisional
`Application”).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`
`An embodiment of the device of the ’276 patent is depicted below:
`
`
`Figure 5A depicts a view of the strength training apparatus. Id. at 4:14–17.
`In particular, Figure 5A depicts displacement of handle 118A due to
`application of force by an individual during exercise. Id. at 6:37–41.
`Handle 118A is connected to cable 116A, which wraps around pulley 114A.
`See id. at 4:52–54.
`Displacement of the handle 118A results in displacement of
`associated cable 116A and, ultimately, displacement of drive chain 150. Id.
`at 6:42–44. As indicated in Figure 5A, a first portion of drive chain 150 is
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`displaced upwards towards first sprocket 154 as indicated by directional
`arrow 170 while a second portion of drive chain 150 is displaced downwards
`away from second sprocket 156 and towards input shaft 144 as indicated by
`directional arrow 172. Id. at 6:44–49. This displacement of the drive chain
`also includes the downward displacement of second sprocket 156 against the
`force of biasing members 160 as seen in both Figures 5A and 5B. Id. at
`6:49–53. The displacement of drive chain 150 results in the rotation of input
`shaft 144, actuating drive mechanism 140 such that drive belt 148 drives
`flywheel 120. Id. at 6:53–56.
`In one example, input device 132 (depicted in Figure 1) of control
`panel 130 may be used to set a desired resistance level that is to be applied
`to flywheel 120 by controlling an actuating member associated with braking
`mechanism 124. Id. at 5:52–55. Output device 134 (e.g., a display) may
`indicate the current or selected level of resistance. Id. at 5:55–57, Fig. 1.
`Output device 134 of control panel 130 may also provide an indication of the
`amount of work performed within a period of time calculated, for example,
`based on the torque applied to flywheel 120 as measured by torque sensor
`128. Id. at 5:57–61.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent challenged claim
`in this proceeding and is illustrative of the subject matter:
`1.
`A strength training apparatus, comprising:
`a base member;
`a tower structure coupled to the base member;
`at least one arm coupled to the tower structure;
`a pulley being coupled to the at least one arm;
`a cable extending through the pulley;
`a handle coupled to a first end of the cable;
`a flywheel connected to the tower structure;
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`
`that
`
`a magnetic braking mechanism
`movement of the flywheel; and
`a console in communication with the magnetic
`braking mechanism;
`wherein displacement of the handle results in
`rotation of the flywheel.
`
`resists
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:23–36.
`II. ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS ASSERTED IN PETITION
`A. Claim Construction
`In this inter partes review, filed May 12, 2017, a claim in an
`unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light
`of the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`(2016); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142
`(2016) (affirming that USPTO has statutory authority to construe claims
`according to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Under that standard, and absent any
`special definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary
`meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`(Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth
`with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30
`F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Petitioner requests construction of the following terms: “sprocket”
`(claims 3, 4, 17, 18, 20); “in communication with” (claims 1, 3, 11, 14, 17,
`20); “biasing member” (claims 2, 3, 16, 17, 20); “connected to/fixed to”
`(claims 1, 3, 10); and “drive mechanism” (claims 11, 12, 14, 20). Pet. 7–10.
`Patent Owner does not request construction of any terms. In our Decision
`on Institution, we set forth preliminary constructions of the five terms
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`identified by Petitioner. Neither party has contested the constructions set
`forth in the Decision on Institution. After considering all evidence and
`arguments anew, we determine that it is proper to maintain the constructions,
`which we discuss as follows.
`1. “sprocket” (claims 3, 4, 17, 18, 20)
`Petitioner proposes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`“sprocket” is “a cylindrical element upon which a chain, cable, rope, or belt
`can be guided.” Pet. 7. Petitioner argues that the Specification teaches that
`pulleys and sprockets are interchangeable based on the statement in the
`Specification that “drive chain 150 extends through several pulleys or
`sprockets.” See id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:23–24). Petitioner also relies
`on Dr. Rawls for the understanding that the ’276 patent must allow for
`structures that work with cables, chains, belts, ropes, or other pulling
`elements. Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 90–91). In other words, Petitioner
`argues that the ’276 patent makes use of cables which work with pulleys.
`In the Decision on Institution, we set forth the preliminary
`construction of “sprocket” to mean “a wheel with teeth.” Dec. 8–9. We
`reasoned that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of sprocket as a wheel with
`teeth is consistent with the usage in the Specification and the claims, which
`differentiates sprockets from pulleys.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 4:50–58, 6:17–
`27; Ex. 3001).
`Although there may be areas of functional overlap between a sprocket
`and a pulley, the parties appeared to be in agreement that a sprocket has
`teeth, that a pulley does not have teeth, and Petitioner indicated that it did
`not contest the preliminary construction of “sprocket” set forth in the
`Decision on Institution. See Tr. 49:1–8, 76:1–20.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`
`After considering all evidence and arguments anew, we determine that
`it is proper to maintain our construction of sprocket from institution as “a
`wheel with teeth.” See Ex. 3001.
`2. “in communication with” (claims 1, 3, 11, 14, 17, 20)
`Petitioner asserts that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “in
`communication with” is “direct or indirect connection to, or exchange.” Pet.
`8 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 94).
`In the Decision on Institution, we set forth the preliminary
`construction of “in communication with” to mean “in direct or indirect
`connection to.” Dec. 9.
`After considering all evidence and arguments anew, we determine that
`it is proper to maintain our construction of “in communication with” to mean
`“in direct or indirect connection to.”
`3. “biasing member” (claims 2, 3, 16, 17, 20)
`Petitioner asserts that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`“biasing member” is a “component that applies force to machine elements
`toward their original positions.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 92).
`In the Decision on Institution, we set forth the preliminary
`construction of “biasing member” to mean “a component that applies force
`to machine elements toward their original positions.” Dec. 9–10.
`After considering all evidence and arguments anew, we determine that
`it is proper to maintain our construction of “in communication with” to mean
`a “component that applies force to machine elements toward their original
`positions.”
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`
`4. “connected to/fixed to” (claims 1, 3, 10)
`Petitioner asserts that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`“connected to/fixed to” is “attached directly or indirectly via intermediate
`components.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 95–96).
`In the Decision on Institution, we set forth the preliminary
`construction of “connected to/fixed to” to mean “in direct or indirect
`connection to.” Dec. 10–11.
`After considering all evidence and arguments anew, we determine that
`it is proper to maintain our construction of “connected to/fixed to” to mean
`“in direct or indirect connection to.”
`5. “drive mechanism” (claims 11, 12, 14, 20)
`Petitioner asserts that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “drive
`mechanism” is “a mechanism that transfers power.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1008
`¶ 93).
`In the Decision on Institution, we set forth the preliminary
`construction of “drive mechanism” to mean “a mechanism that transfers
`power.” Dec. 10.
`After considering all evidence and arguments anew, we determine that
`it is proper to maintain our construction “drive mechanism” to mean “a
`mechanism that transfers power.”
`B. Principles of Law
`To prevail in its challenges to the patentability of the claims,
`Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d).
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`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 skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness.
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`C. Obviousness of Claims 1–4 and 10 over Wu (Ex. 1002) and Jones (Ex.
`1005)
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–4 and 10 are unpatentable as
`obvious over Wu and Jones. Pet. 19–22, 24–38.
`1. Overview of Wu
`Wu is titled “Weight Lifting Exerciser” and relates to an exerciser
`using a non-friction magnetic resistance device to create a proper exercise
`resistance. Ex. 1002, [54], ¶ 2. Wu discloses that the machine utilizes a
`flywheel that travels unidirectionally and that resistance force will not be
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`created in the return direction of the pulling elements. Id. ¶¶ 1, 7, 13. A
`preferred embodiment is depicted in Figure 1 below:
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a perspective view of a preferred embodiment. Id.
`
`¶ 9.
`
`
`Electronic element 70 drives magnet set 24 to adjust the clearance
`between unidirectional flywheel 22 and magnet set 24 so as to obtain an
`expected exercise resistance. Id. ¶ 13.
`2. Overview of Jones
`Jones is titled “Rowing Machine” and relates to exercise equipment
`and more particularly, to a machine for exercising the muscles and
`practicing the skills that are used in rowing. Ex. 1005, [54], 1:11–13. Jones
`discloses a rowing exerciser that has a horizontal frame with a seat mounted
`for movement along the frame, foot rests, a rotatable flywheel, handle means
`for rotating the flywheel, and an eddy current brake coupled to the flywheel
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`to resist rotation of the flywheel. Id. at 1:65–2:2. Figure 4 is reproduced
`below:
`
`
`Figure 4 depicts a view in vertical section of an embodiment of Jones.
`Id. at 2:64–3:4.
`When a user pulls on a handle, handle chain 40 will be extended,
`thereby stretching tension cord 36, so that on release of the pulling force,
`tension cord 36 will cause slide block 35 to withdraw rearwardly within
`horizontal member 11 and the handle will be moved towards drive sprocket
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`44. Id. at 4:17–23. Jones’s drive mechanism is depicted in Figure 10, which
`is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 10 is a top plan view of the flywheel mechanism of a second
`embodiment. Id. at 3:15–19.
`As the handle is pulled outwardly by the user, chain 120 will rotate
`sprocket 112 and the rotation will be imparted to drive shaft 105 through
`one-way clutch 107. Id. at 8:1–4. Toothed belt 126 will transmit the
`rotation of drive shaft 105 to flywheel shaft 101 and then to flywheel 100.
`Id. at 8:11–16. When the handle is retracted, one-way clutch 107 will free
`wheel and will not impart rotation to drive shaft 105. Id. at 8:4–10.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`
`An aspect of Jones’s drive mechanism, depicted in Figure 11, is
`reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 11 is an exploded view in perspective of the sprocket and one-
`way clutch assembly of the drive shaft of the second embodiment. Id. at
`3:20–22.
`The assembly includes one-way clutch 107 keyed to the drive shaft
`105. Id. at 7:48–49. Clutch 107 includes axially extending hub 108 on
`which is keyed sprocket hub 109. Id. at 7:49–51. Sprocket hub 109 has a
`series of spline recesses 110 which receive splines 111 of sprocket wheel
`112. Id. at 7:51–53. Spacers 113 are disposed on either side of sprocket
`wheel 112 on hub 109 and keeper plates 114 are mounted on hub 109
`outside of each spacer 113. Id. at 7:53–56. The assembly of sprocket wheel
`112, spacers 113 and keeper plates 114 is held in place on sprocket hub 109
`by threaded end cap 115 mounted on an external threaded portion of
`sprocket hub 109. Id. at 7:56–60.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`
`3. Analysis
`In its Petition, Petitioner sets forth its contentions as to how the
`limitations of claims 1–4 and 10 are disclosed in, or obvious over, the
`combination of Wu and Jones. Pet. 24–38. As noted above, Patent Owner
`did not file a Patent Owner Response. Thus, the record contains only
`Petitioner’s contentions and evidence and no responsive evidence or
`argument from Patent Owner.
`a. Independent claim 1
` i. preamble, “a base member,” and “a tower structure coupled to the base
`member”
`Petitioner asserts, inter alia, that Wu discloses a strength training
`apparatus with a base and a tower coupled thereto. Pet. 24–25 (citing, e.g.,
`Ex. 1002, Title, Abstract, ¶ 13, Fig. 2; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 245–247). We find that
`Wu discloses these limitations. In particular, Wu discloses front frame 11
`and rear frame 14, which collectively support upright post 13 and parallel
`bars 15. Ex. 1002 ¶ 13, Figs. 1, 2. We determine that front frame 11 and
`rear frame 14 constitute a base, and that upright post 13 with parallel bars 15
`constitute a “tower structure.”
`ii. “at least one arm coupled to the tower structure,” “a pulley being
`coupled to at least one arm,” “a cable extending through the pulley,” and
`“a handle coupled to a first end of the cable”
`Petitioner asserts, inter alia, that Wu discloses an arm coupled to the
`tower, a pulley coupled to an arm, a cable extending through a pulley, and a
`handle coupled to the cable. Pet. 25–27 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶ 16, Figs. 1,
`3; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 248–252). We find that Wu discloses these limitations. In
`particular, Wu discloses hollow arms 16 coupled to upright post 13, with
`guide pulleys 52 at the ends of hollow arms 16, cable (“second pulling
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`element”) 40 passing through guide pulleys 52, and grips 53 fitted to both
`ends of cable 40. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 16, Figs. 1, 3; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 248–252.
`iii. “a flywheel connected to the tower structure”
`Petitioner asserts, inter alia, that Wu discloses flywheel 22 connected
`to parallel bars 15, via shaft 25, and that flywheel 22 is, in any event,
`indirectly connected to upright post 13. Pet. 27–28 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1002
`¶ 16, Figs. 2, 3; Ex. 1008 ¶ 253). On this record, we are persuaded that
`Petitioner has made an adequate showing. In particular, Wu discloses that
`magnetic resistance device 20, which includes flywheel 22, is movable
`through shaft 25 and provided between parallel bars 15. Ex. 1002 ¶ 13, Figs.
`2, 3.
`iv. “a magnetic braking mechanism that resists movement of the flywheel”
`and “a console in communication with the magnetic braking mechanism”
`Petitioner asserts, inter alia, that Wu discloses a magnetic braking
`mechanism and a console in communication therewith. Pet. 28–29 (citing,
`e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 13, 19, claims 2, 3, 8, 9; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 44–55, 244–256). We
`find that Wu discloses these limitations. In particular, Wu discloses
`magnetic set 24 and console 10. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 13, 19. Wu further discloses
`that resistance on the device is adjustable. Id. Wu discloses that electronic
`adjustment element 70 is utilized to drive magnet set 24 for adjusting the
`clearance between magnet set 24 and flywheel 22 to obtain an expected
`exercise resistance. Id. ¶ 13. Wu discloses that a user can set a heartrate on
`the console such that if there is insufficient or excess heartrate, the console
`will command electronic adjustment element 70 to adjust the resistance. Id.
`¶ 19. Although setting a heartrate is not a direct way to adjust resistance, the
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`claim does not require more than communication between the console and
`the magnetic braking mechanism, which is present.
`
`v. “wherein the displacement of the handle results in rotation of the
`flywheel”
`Petitioner asserts, inter alia, that Wu’s device possesses the
`functionality recited in the “wherein” clause. Pet. 29 (citing, e.g., Ex.
`1002 ¶ 17; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 257–258). We find that Wu discloses this limitation.
`In particular, Wu discloses that when grips 53 are pulled, pulling element 30
`causes coiling wheel 21 and unidirectional flywheel 22 to rotate
`synchronously. Ex. 1002 ¶ 17.
`
`vi. Summary
`We determine that Wu renders obvious independent claim 1. We
`determine that Jones is not essential to the asserted ground of unpatentability
`with respect to independent claim 1.
`b. claims 2 and 10
`Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites “a biasing member
`that returns the handle without causing rotation of the flywheel.” Ex. 1001,
`8:37–39. Petitioner asserts that Jones discloses an elastic cord, or tension
`cord 36 (biasing member), that connects from an anchor point to slide block
`35 through a series of pulleys. Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:3–5). Petitioner
`argues that a person of ordinary skill would understand that when a single
`pull cable or chain is fixed to a frame on one end and has a user pull handle
`on the other, routing the cable or chain over a displaceable pulley or
`sprocket connected to a tension cord will cause the handle to retract when a
`user releases her pulling force. Id. at 30–31 (citing Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 262–263).
`Petitioner asserts that Jones discloses such a relationship. Id. at 31 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 4:1–25). Petitioner asserts that Jones’s flywheel rotates only in a
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`first direction (when a user pulls the cable or chain) because of one-way
`clutch 107. Id. at 31–32 (citing Ex. 1005, 8:1–10, Fig. 4; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 263–
`265).
`
`We find Jones discloses this limitation. In particular, Jones discloses
`that “[w]hen a user pulls upon the handle 47, the handle chain 40 will be
`extended thereby stretching the tension cord 36 so that, upon release of the
`pulling force on the handle by the user, the tension cord 36 will cause the
`slide block 35 to withdraw rearwardly … and the handle 47 will be moved
`towards the drive sprocket 44.” Ex. 1005, 4:17–23. This satisfies the recited
`retraction of the handle. Jones discloses that when the handle is retracted,
`one way clutch 107 will freewheel and will not impart rotation to the drive
`shaft, such that flywheel 100 can continue in its previous momentum. Ex.
`1005, 8:4–8.
`Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein the cable
`includes a second end that is fixed to the tower structure.” Ex. 1001, 8:61–
`63. Petitioner relies on Jones for this limitation. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1005,
`4:8–10, Fig. 4). We find that Jones discloses the recited anchoring. In
`particular, Jones discloses that its cable/chain is “anchored within the
`horizontal member 11 at anchor point 41.” Ex. 1005, 4:8–10, Fig. 4.
`Horizontal member 11 is part of the frame. See id. at 3:37–47.
`Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill would have
`implemented Jones’s configuration inside of Wu to allow extension of
`cables through a longer structure, to provide a simpler and more reliable
`design than a coiling apparatus, and to prevent mechanical failure. Pet. 33
`(citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 265–266). We are persuaded that a person of ordinary
`skill would have sought to implement a biasing member, as taught by Jones,
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`in Wu’s device in order to allow extension of a cable in a compact machine
`and to prevent mechanical failure. See Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 163, 265–266.
`Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown that claims 2
`and 10 are obvious over Wu and Jones.
`c. claims 3 and 4
`Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and further recites “wherein the biasing
`member is in communication with a sprocket, and the cable extends through
`the sprocket.” Ex. 1001, 8:40–42. Claim 4 depends from claim 3, and
`further recites “wherein the sprocket is displaceable relative to the tower
`structure when the handle is pulled.” Id. at 8:43–45.
`Petitioner asserts, inter alia, that Jones’s elastic cord 36 (biasing
`member) is in communication with sprocket 42. Pet. 34–36 (citing Ex.
`1005, 4:10–11, 7:61–67; Ex. 1008 ¶ 269–270). We find that Jones discloses
`these limitations. In particular, Jones discloses that chain 40 extends around
`idler sprocket 42 on slide block 35. Ex. 1005, 4:10–12. Tension cord 36 is
`attached to slide block 35, on which idler sprocket 42 is located. Id. at 4:10–
`12. When the user pulls upon the handle 47, the handle chain 40 will be
`extended thereby stretching the tension cord 36 so that, upon release of the
`pulling force on the handle by the user, the tension cord 36 will cause the
`slide block 35 to withdraw rearwardly within the horizontal member 11 and
`the handle 47 will be moved towards the drive sprocket 44. Id. at 4:16–24.14
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill would have sought to
`combine the teachings of Wu and Jones, inter alia, to enable a user to pull a
`
`
`14 We understand the recited “cable” to be able to be satisfied by a chain in
`this context because the cable is recited as extending through a sprocket. As
`such, we understand chain 40 to satisfy the recited cable.
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`long length of cable out during exercise, while requiring only half of the
`travel distance from the biasing member. Pet. 19–21 (citing Ex. 1008
`¶ 163). We conclude that Petitioner has shown that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have sought to create a more compact machine. See
`Ex. 1008 ¶ 163. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown that
`claims 3 and 4 are obvious over Wu and Jones.
`D. Obviousness of Claims 5 and 6 Over Wu and Webb (Ex. 1003)
`Petitioner contends that claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious
`over Wu and Webb. Pet. 20, 39–41.
`1. Overview of Webb
`Webb is titled “Multi-Functional Weight Training Machine With
`Horizontal and Vertical Axes of Rotation” and relates to exercise and weight
`training equipment. See Ex. 1003, [54], ¶ 1. Webb discloses an exercise
`machine that includes a frame, a pair of arm assemblies, a pair of handle
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01408
`Patent 9,616,276 B2
`
`units, a coupling unit, and a resistance imparting unit, with arms that are
`pivotable. Id. ¶ 6. Figure 1 of Webb is depicted below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Webb is a perspective view of the machine with the arms
`in a generally horizontal direction. Id. ¶ 9.
`Arm assembly 60a is attached to frame 22 via mounting bracket 62.
`Id. ¶ 28. The insertion of pin 88 into one of the apertures 84 prevents
`rotation of mounting bracket 62 about axis A1. Id. ¶ 29, Fig. 2.
`2. Analysis
`Claim 5 depends from claim
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
