Paper No. 31
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`Entered: December 9, 2019
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WISCONSIN ARCHERY PRODUCTS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before: BARBARA A. PARVIS, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Garmin International, Inc., (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 to institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4, 5,
`7–9, 12, 13, and 20–26 of U.S. Patent No. 8,316,551 B2 (“the ’551 Patent”).
`Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Wisconsin Archery Products, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed
`a Preliminary Response. Paper 10 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Upon consideration of
`the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence, we instituted an inter
`partes review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, as to the challenged claims of the
`’551 Patent. Paper 11 (“Inst. Dec.”).
`After institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper
`21, “PO Resp.”); Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 24, “Pet. Reply”); and
`Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 25, “PO Sur-reply”). A transcript of
`the hearing held on September 6, 2019, has been entered into the record as
`Paper 30 (“Tr.”).
`This Final Written Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated
`by a preponderance of evidence that the challenged claims of the ’551 Patent
`are unpatentable.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`Real Parties-in-Interest
`A.
`Petitioner names Garmin International, Inc., Garmin USA, Inc., and
`Garmin Switzerland GmbH as the real parties-in-interest. Pet. 65. Patent
`Owner names Wisconsin Archery Products, LLC and Burris Company, Inc.
`as the real parties-in-interest. Paper 4, 2.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`
`Related Matters
`B.
`As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), each party identifies a judicial
`matter that would affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding. In
`particular, the parties inform us that the ’551 Patent is asserted in Burris Co.
`v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00700 (D. Or.) (“the Related District
`Court Proceeding”). Pet. 65; Paper 4, 2.
`
`The ’551 Patent
`C.
`The ʼ551 Patent is directed to bow sighting devices for establishing
`aiming positions while using a bow. Ex. 1001, 1:15–17. Figure 1 of the
`’551 Patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`Figure 1 of the ’551 Patent, above, illustrates automatically correcting bow
`sight 20 on bow 5. Id. at 6:2–3.
`Bow 5 has riser 8 that serves as a main central body portion with
`integral handle 10 for holding bow 5. Id. at 6:13–15. Bow 5 also has upper
`and lower limbs 12 and 14 extending from upper and lower portions of riser
`8, respectively. Id. at 6:16–18. Bow sight 20 includes base 25, sight array
`30, and sensor system 40. Id. at 6:29–36.
`Bow sight 20 is illustrated in more detail with respect to Figure 2 of
`the ’551 Patent, reproduced below. Id. at 5:25–26.
`
`Id. at Fig. 2. Figure 2 illustrates a schematic of electronic components of
`bow sight 20 including sensor system 40. Id. at 5:25–26, 6:29–30.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`
`Sensor system 40 includes processor 80 connected to each of range
`finder 50, inclinometer 60, and anemometer 70. Id. at 8:66–9:2, Fig. 2.
`Processor 80 dynamically receives signals transmitted from range finder 50,
`inclinometer 60, and anemometer 70 and determines whether aim indicator
`35 should be corrected. Id. at 9:49–51. Display 110 is connected to
`processor 80 and receives information to display data such as shooting
`distance, shooting angle, and wind speed and direction. Id. at 9:61–10:5,
`Fig. 2.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`D.
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–9, 12, 13, and 20–26 of the
`’551 Patent. Pet. 1. Claims 1, 13, and 23 are independent claims. Claims 2,
`4, 5, 7–9, 12, 20–22, and 24–26 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1,
`13, or 23. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
`claimed subject matter:
`1. An auto-correcting bow sight, comprising:
`[a]1 a range finder supported on a bow incorporating the auto-
`correcting bow sight, the range finder determining a range to
`a target;
`[b] an inclinometer supported on the bow and determining an
`angle of inclination of the bow;
`[c] a processor supported on the bow and receiving information
`from the range finder and the inclinometer relating to the
`range to target and the angle of inclination of the bow,
`respectively;
`
`
`1 Petitioner refers to the elements recited in claim 1 as “1a” (Pet. 13), “1b”
`(id. at 15), “1c” (id. at 17), “1d” (id. at 18, 21), and “1e” (id. at 23, 28). We
`use Petitioner’s designations to reference those elements herein.
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`
`[d] multiple aim indicators being operably connected to the
`processor, wherein the processor controls which of the
`multiple aim indicators is displayed at a given time based on
`at least one of (i) the range to target, and (ii) the angle of
`inclination of the bow, information; and
`[e] a manually actuated input device that is operably connected
`to the processor and that can be actuated for beginning an
`evaluation by the processor that determines which of the
`multiple aim indicators to display based on the at least one of
`the range to target and the angle of inclination of the bow, and
`wherein the manually actuated input device is arranged upon
`the bow to allow actuation of the input device by an archer
`when the bow is in a fully drawn position.
`Ex. 1001, 15:53–16:9.
`
`Evidence Relied Upon
`E.
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`U.S. Patent No. 5,914,775, filed May 23, 1997, issued June 22, 1999
`(Ex. 1004, “Hargrove”);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,079,111, filed November 19, 1996, issued June 27,
`2000 (Ex. 1005, “Williams”); and
`U.S. Patent No. 5,634,278, filed September 20, 1995, issued June 3,
`1997 (Ex. 1006, “London”).
`Additionally, Petitioner relies on the Declaration of John William
`Cross, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003) and the Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Cross
`(Ex. 1013). Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of James M. Zavislan,
`Ph.D. (Ex. 2002) and the Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Zavislan
`(Ex. 2009). Patent Owner further submits a Declaration of Dr. Zavislan filed
`in the Related District Court Proceeding in support of its contentions relating
`to secondary considerations. PO Resp. 55 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 65–87).
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`
`F. Grounds Asserted
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability2 (Pet. 6):
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`35
`U.S.C.
`
`References/Basis
`
`1, 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 20, 23–26
`
`§ 103
`
`Hargrove, Williams
`
`4, 5, 9, 21, 22
`
`
`
`§ 103
`
`Hargrove, Williams,
`London
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`Principles of Law Relating to Obviousness
`A.
`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,
`i.e., secondary considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
`17–18 (1966). When evaluating a combination of teachings, we also
`“determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known
`elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’551
`Patent was filed before the effective date of the relevant amendment, the pre-
`AIA version of § 103 applies.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`B.
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
`may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
`prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
`made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
`workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`(citation omitted). Petitioner relies on the testimony of Dr. Cross and
`contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had an
`undergraduate degree or equivalent in physics, electrical engineering,
`computer engineering/science, or similar science or engineering degree and
`at least two years of industry experience (or, with a graduate degree, at least
`one year of experience) in optics technologies and projectile weapon
`sighting, including archery. Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–25). Petitioner
`further contends additional industry experience or technical training may
`offset less formal education, while advanced degrees or additional formal
`education may offset lesser levels of industry experience. Id.
`Dr. Zavislan testifies that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`would have had “at least an undergraduate degree in optics or electrical
`engineering and at least two years of practical experience in the design of
`electro-optical systems and experience with archery.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 29. Patent
`Owner, however, does not provide meaningful contentions regarding level of
`skill in the Patent Owner Response. See generally PO Resp. For instance,
`Patent Owner does not explain how any differences in Dr. Zavislan’s level
`of the skilled artisan as compared to Dr. Cross’s level of the skilled artisan
`impact our determinations herein including, for example, that it would have
`been obvious to modify Hargrove to position its switch to allow an archer to
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`actuate at full draw. Id. Indeed, the levels of skill overlap in that both
`include a person having an undergraduate degree electrical engineering and
`at least two years of industry experience involving optics systems and,
`importantly, both skill levels include experience in archery. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–
`25; Ex. 2002 ¶ 29.
`On the record before us, we are persuaded to adopt Dr. Cross’s
`assessment of a person with ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent
`with the problems and solutions in the prior art of record. We further find
`that the prior art of record in the instant proceeding reflects the appropriate
`level of ordinary skill in the art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355
`(Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of skill
`in the art).3
`
`Claim Construction
`C.
`In this inter partes review, we construe claim terms according to their
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2017).4 Petitioner does not
`propose an express construction for any claim term in the Petition. Pet. 7.
`In the Decision to Institute, we discussed the term “incorporating” recited in
`the following limitation in claim 1 “a range finder supported on a bow
`
`
`3 Our conclusions, however, do not turn on which definition is selected.
`4 The claim construction standard to be employed in an inter partes review
`changed. See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting
`Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83
`Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective
`November 13, 2018). At the time of the filing of the Petition in this
`proceeding, however, the applicable claim construction standard was set
`forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2017).
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`incorporating the auto-correcting bow sight.” Ex. 1001, 15:54–55
`(emphasis added). We applied the ordinary and customary meaning, namely
`that the range finder is supported on the bow. No party challenges that
`determination in the Decision to Institute and, based on the full record, we
`discern no reason to modify it.
`In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner contends two claim
`limitations require construction, i.e., “arranged upon the bow” and “targeting
`sight.” PO Resp. 19. Petitioner provides responsive contentions in its
`Reply. Pet. Reply 11–18. We discuss the parties’ contentions below.
`
`“arranged upon the bow”— Claim 1
`1.
`Patent Owner proposes that “arranged upon the bow” means “an input
`device that is mounted on the bow separately and independently from the
`remainder of the bow sight.” PO Resp. 19. Patent Owner asserts that its
`proposed construction is consistent with Figures 1 and 7 in the ’551 Patent
`Specification illustrating trigger button 121. Id. at 22–23 (citing Ex. 1001,
`Figs. 1, 7). Petitioner relies on the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim
`language. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 13; Tr. 9:1–7.
`“Arrange” means “to put in a defined order.” See, e.g., THE NEW
`INTERNATIONAL WEBSTER’S STANDARD DICTIONARY 24 (Trident Reference
`Publishing 2006) (Ex. 3002). Looking to the claim language, claim 1 recites
`the arrangement or the defined order, i.e., “wherein the manually actuated
`input device is arranged upon the bow to allow actuation of the input device
`by an archer when the bow is in a fully drawn position.” Ex. 1001, 16:7–9
`(emphasis added).
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`
`During the hearing, Patent Owner argued that “arranged upon”
`suggests “customized ability” and differs from “supported on.” Tr. 32:13–
`23. However, Patent Owner asserts that although claim 26 “uses different
`terminology, claim 26 claims a configuration similar [to] the configuration
`of the input device of claim 1.” PO Resp. 35. Claim 26 recites “wherein the
`input device comprises a triggering button that is supported by the bow . . .
`so as to allow actuation . . . when the bow is in a fully drawn position.” Ex.
`1001, 18:43–48 (emphasis added). Claim 1 recites “a processor supported
`on the bow” (id. at 15:59–62 (emphasis added)) and processor (element 80
`in Figure 3 of the ’551 Patent) is not mounted separately and independently
`from the remainder of the bow sight. Id. at 8:66–9:2, Fig. 3. Also, Patent
`Owner acknowledges that the same claim terms should have the same
`meaning. Tr. 31:14–17.
`In applying a broadest reasonable construction, claim terms generally
`are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In
`re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`Additionally, we must be 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). Claim 1 recites expressly the manually actuated input
`device is arranged upon the bow. We are not persuaded to limit claim 1 to
`the preferred embodiment illustrated in Figures 1 and 7 of the ’551 Patent
`based on the description in the ’551 Patent Specification.
`Patent Owner also asserts that “[b]ased on the prosecution history of
`claim 1, the limitation requiring an input device ‘arranged upon the bow’
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`cannot be construed to include configurations such as Roberts or Perkins,
`which discloses an input device incorporated into a rangefinder (or other
`device) that is then mounted to the bow.” PO Resp. 24 (citing Phillips v.
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Patent Owner,
`however, acknowledges that “[a]s originally filed” claim 1 also did not
`include “the functional component (‘to allow actuation of the input device
`by an archer when the bow is in a fully drawn position’).” Id. at 20; Tr.
`34:1–35:8 (acknowledging that claims not reciting “arranged upon the bow”
`were allowed over the same prior art). Also, consistent with Petitioner’s
`contention (Pet. Reply 12), Perkins describes a range finder that is “off-bow”
`or not mounted to a bow. Ex. 1002, 43; Tr. 29:8–30:9.
`Accordingly, we are not persuaded to limit “arranged upon the bow”
`recited in claim 1 (Ex. 1001, 16:7) to a preferred embodiment as Patent
`Owner proposes. Instead, we apply the ordinary and customary meaning,
`namely that “wherein the manually actuated input device is arranged upon
`the bow to allow actuation of the input device by an archer when the bow is
`in a fully drawn position” (Ex. 1001, 16:6–9 (emphasis added)) means
`“wherein the manually actuated input device is mounted on the bow so as to
`allow actuation of the input device by an archer when the bow is in a fully
`drawn position.”
`
`“targeting sight”— Claims 5 and 21
`2.
`Patent Owner proposes that “targeting sight” means “a discrete mark
`or indicator that allows an archer to aim the laser of a range finder at an
`intended target.” PO Resp. 19. Patent Owner states “[t]he most typical
`targeting site is the center of a set of cross-hairs.” Id. at 25. Patent Owner
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`asserts its proposed construction is supported by the ’551 Patent
`Specification. Id. at 24–27 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:9–13, 10:50–11:29, Figs. 9,
`10).
`
`Petitioner asserts a targeting sight is an alignment and aiming tool.
`Pet. Reply 17; Tr. 25:22–23:4. Petitioner, more specifically, takes the
`position that “[t]he targeting sight is not just the cross-hairs” (Tr. 26:10–11
`(emphasis added)) and “[t]he ‘targeting sight’ described in the ’551 Patent
`encompasses, at the least, the crown 32 and the fixed cross hairs, both of
`which are provided on the sight array 30 included in the bow sight 20.” Pet.
`Reply 14–16 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:29–31, 7:4–19, 11:7–14, 12:48–53).
`The portions of the ’551 Patent Specification relied upon by Patent
`Owner support Petitioner’s position. For instance, Patent Owner relies on
`the following portion of the ’551 Patent Specification: “[t]argeting sight 31
`preferably has a cross-hair type configuration and further includes a crown
`32 that extends in an arc across the top of the targeting sight 31.” Ex. 1001,
`7:10–13 (emphasis added) (cited at PO Resp. 27). Regarding that
`description in the ’551 Patent Specification, during oral argument, Patent
`Owner argued as follows:
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: For example, the top of column 7 of the
`patent says targeting sight 31 preferably has a cross-hair
`configuration and further includes a crown 32. So is the crown
`32, is that part of the targeting sight 31 or is it separate?
`MR. GRIGGS: I believe it’s -- I'm getting to that language
`here, it would be separate and that could just be some inartful
`wording. I think what we're looking at is every embodiment
`disclosed in the 551 patent has a cross-hair or a targeting sight.
`You know, the crown can be a supplemental aspect of that but
`our proposed construction of targeting sight, I know there’s an
`argument that it’s excluding preferred embodiments. First of all,
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`
`the claims don’t have to cover every preferred embodiment, but
`our construction is completely consistent with all of the different
`embodiments, and that they all have a discreet marker indicator,
`in this instance a cross-hair, that represents the default sighted in
`position at which the laser is trained.
`Tr. 51:15–52:6.
`The aforementioned portion of the ’551 Patent Specification relied
`upon by Patent Owner clearly states that “[t]argeting sight 31 . . . includes a
`crown 32.” Ex. 1001, 7:10–13 (emphasis added) (cited at PO Resp. 27).
`That portion supports Petitioner’s position, not Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction.
`The remaining portion relied upon by Patent Owner similarly refers to
`the targeting sight 31 as having crosshairs, but not being limited to just those
`crosshairs. Ex. 1001, 11:9 (describing “targeting sight 31 (or its cross-
`hairs)”), 11:27–28 (describing “the crosshairs of the targeting sight 31”).
`Patent Owner does not point to description in the ’551 Patent Specification
`of a targeting sight limited to only fixed crosshairs. See generally PO Resp.
`Another portion of the ’551 Patent Specification further supports
`Petitioner’s position. In particular, the ’551 Patent Specification describes
`“the archer aligns the crown 32 of the targeting sight 31 with the top edge of
`the peep sight opening [and] centers the crosshairs of the targeting sight 31
`within the peep sight 18.” Ex. 1001, 12:48–53 (emphasis added). We agree
`with Petitioner that in light of the ’551 Patent Specification “targeting sight”
`is not just the crosshairs.
`Patent Owner asserts Dr. Cross, Petitioner’s Declarant, agrees with
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction. PO Resp. 24–27 (citing Ex. 2007,
`54:4–11). Based on the complete record before us, we are not persuaded
`that Dr. Cross’s deposition testimony that the targeting sight is the crosshairs
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`(Ex. 2007, 54:4–55:18) contradicts his declaration testimony. Dr. Cross
`testifies that he disagrees with Patent Owner that the targeting sight is only
`the crosshairs. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 25–26; see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 93 (testifying that
`“the ’551 Patent describes the targeting sight as essentially the whole of the
`viewable sight seen by the archer”).
`In light of the ’551 Patent Specification, we agree with Petitioner
`regarding the construction of “targeting sight” and determine that “targeting
`sight” means “an alignment and aiming tool.”
`
`D. Obviousness over Hargrove and Williams
`Petitioner contends each of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 20, and 23–26 of
`the ’551 Patent are unpatentable, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as obvious over
`Hargrove and Williams. Pet. 6, 12–53. Patent Owner opposes. See
`generally PO Resp. In our discussion below, we first provide a brief
`overview of the prior art, and then we address the parties’ contentions in
`turn.
`
`Hargrove
`3.
`Hargrove is directed to archery and properly positioning a sighting
`device. Ex. 1004, 1:5–9. Figure 11 of Hargrove is reproduced below.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 11. Figure 11 illustrates range finder 140 mounted to archery bow
`142. Id. at 13:9–10. Range finder 140 includes housing 144 rigidly
`connected with mounting plate 146. Id. at 13:14–16. Range finder 140 also
`includes display 152 comprising a conventional liquid crystal display
`(LCD). Id. at 13:25–26. Range finder 140 employs point-to-point
`measuring device 154 affixed to housing top surface 156. Id. at 13:8–9, 29–
`31.
`
`Range finder 140 includes internal circuitry and components, which
`are shown in more detail in Figure 12 reproduced below. Id. at 4:53–55.
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 12. Figure 12 of Hargorve, above, illustrates internal circuitry and
`components of range finder 140 including programmed data processor 159.
`Id. at 4:53–55, 13:39–41. Programmed data processor 159 is coupled to and
`receives signals from angle sensitive transducer 160 and point-to-point
`measuring device 154 and performs calculations based on the received
`signals. Id. at 13:39–48.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`
`An additional embodiment similar to the previously described
`embodiment is described with respect to Figure 17 of Hargrove, reproduced
`below. Id. at 15:24–27.5
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 17. Figure 17 of Hargrove, above, illustrates range finder 179
`using LCD display 180. Id. at 15:24–29. Display 180 makes visible one of
`a plurality of vertical lines 182 and one of a plurality of horizontal lines 184
`to produce a movable cross hair sight. Id. at 15:29–32.
`
`
`5 Herein, we refer to these two embodiments with respect to the Figure
`numbers, e.g., the embodiment shown in Figures 11 through 13 and the
`embodiment shown in Figures 17 and 18, respectively.
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`
`4. Williams
`Williams is directed to sighting devices for use with an archery bow.
`Ex. 1005, 1:17–18. Williams describes sight apparatus 10a attached to
`archery bow 11. Id. at 7:12–14. Sight apparatus 10a comprises housing 92,
`bracket pins 94, pendulum arm 95 supporting pendulous sight 16a, and
`trigger plate 96. Id. at 7:14–17. Trigger plate 96 has upper end 144, lower
`end 146, trigger handle 148, pin slot 150 and elevator disc opening 152. Id.
`at 8:22–24. Trigger plate 96 can be moved by applying a force to the trigger
`handle 148. Id. at 8:32–36. An archer is able to move the trigger handle 148
`without removing the bow-gripping hand from the bow 11 to adjust the
`position of the trigger plate 96 while maintaining the bow 11 at full draw.
`Id. at 8:36–44.
`
`Claim 1
`5.
`We begin our analysis with independent claim 1. Petitioner asserts
`that claim 1 is obvious over Hargrove and Williams. Pet. 6, 12–35. Patent
`Owner counters (PO Resp. 29–33, 34–35, 37–48) that the asserted prior art
`combination does not teach “wherein the manually actuated input device is
`arranged upon the bow to allow actuation of the input device by an archer
`when the bow is in a fully drawn position.” Ex. 1001, 16:6–9. Patent
`Owner also challenges Petitioner’s reasoning to combine. PO Resp. 30–33,
`48–50, 55–56.
`Upon review of the evidence in the entire record now before us, we
`find that Petitioner has shown how the combination of Hargrove and
`Williams teach each limitation of claim 1, and we determine that Patent
`Owner’s arguments do not undermine Petitioner’s showing.
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`
`Preamble
`a.
`We start with the preamble of claim 1, which recites “[a]n auto-
`correcting bow sight.” Ex. 1001, 15:53. Petitioner contends although
`Hargrove “does not use the term ‘bow sight’ to identify its device, instead
`using the terms ‘rangefinder’ or ‘rangefinding device’ or ‘rangefinding
`apparatus,’” Hargrove “describe[s] an auto correcting bow sight.” Pet. 12–
`13 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004, 4:22–25, 5:13–15, 6:23–29, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–21,
`15:24–35, 15:65–16:3, 16:13–17, Figs. 11, 17). Petitioner also cites Dr.
`Cross’s Declaration as support. Id. (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50, 54). Dr.
`Cross testifies “it is common in the industry that the entire apparatus, such as
`the range finder 179 shown in Fig. 17 of Hargrove, is referred to as a ‘bow
`sight.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 50. Dr. Cross further testifies “Hargrove’s rangefinder
`179 includes electronic components conventional to a bow sight.” Id.
`Hargrove describes range finding device 20 (Ex. 1004, 5:13–15) that
`displays the distance and includes programmed data processor 34 (id. at
`6:65–7:2), as well as range finder 140 comprising display 152 and
`programmed data processor 159 (id. at 13:23–43) and range finder 179
`comprising display 180 and programmed data processor 202 (id. at 15:24–
`45).6 Petitioner makes the requisite showing that Hargrove teaches the
`subject matter recited in the preamble and Patent Owner does not dispute
`Petitioner’s showing.
`
`
`6 Range finder 140 comprising display 152 and programmed data processor
`159 is described in the embodiment shown in Figures 11 through 13 (id. at
`13:7–9, 13:23–43) and range finder 179 comprising display 180 and
`programmed data processor 202 is described in the embodiment shown in
`Figures 17 and 18 (id. at 15:24–45).
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`
`Element 1(a)
`b.
`Element 1(a) is “a range finder supported on a bow incorporating the
`auto-correcting bow sight, the range finder determining a range to a target.”
`Ex. 1001, 15:54–56. Petitioner contends as follows:
`The rangefinder 179 of Figs. 17–18 further includes a
`“point-to-point measuring device 214, which may comprise a
`laser point-to-point measuring device” that is “operatively
`coupled with the programmed data processor 202 to provide
`point-to-point distance information. . . .” (Ex. 1004, 15:55–60,
`Fig. 18, Claim 17). Dr. Cross opines that a POSITA would
`understand the laser point-to-point measuring device 214 as
`being the claimed range finder. (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 58–59). Hargrove
`therefore teaches the claimed “range finder determining a range
`to a target.”
`Hargrove’s rangefinder 179 (i.e., the bow sight) includes
`the disclosed point-to-point measuring device 214 and processor
`202 (see Ex. 1004, Fig. 18, 15:42–45, 55–60), and as discussed
`above, Hargrove’s rangefinder 179 with included measuring
`device 214 and processor 202 are mounted to the bow. (Ex.
`1003, ¶¶ 55–56). Hargrove also teaches that the point-to-point
`measuring device 154 of the Fig. 11 embodiment is mounted to
`a housing top surface 156. Id. at 13:29–35. Similarly, Hargrove
`illustrates the point-to-point measuring device 214 of the Fig. 17
`embodiment mounted to the top of the housing of the display
`194. See id. at Fig. 17, RN 214; Ex. 1003, ¶ 62. Therefore,
`Hargrove teaches that the claimed “rangefinder” is supported on
`a bow.
`Pet. 14.
`We agree with Petitioner’s contentions, and we credit and give
`significant weight to the testimony of Dr. Cross as Dr. Cross’s testimony and
`Petitioner’s contentions are consistent with the evidence cited therein. For
`example, Hargrove’s range finder 140 includes programmed data processor
`159 comprising a microprocessor coupled with point-to-point measuring
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`device 154. Ex. 1004, 13:39–43. Programmed data processor 159 is
`programmed to perform calculations based on angle dependent signals from
`angle sensitive transducer 160 and distance dependent signals from point-to-
`point measuring device 154. Id. at 13:43–48, 14:10–29.
`Dr. Cross’s testimony and Petitioner’s contentions regarding
`Hargrove’s range finder 179 also are consistent with the evidence cited
`therein. For instance, Hargrove describes “[i]n operation, in a manner
`identical to the manner of operation of the range finder 140 discussed above,
`the programmed data processor 202 calculates the horizontal distance to the
`target based upon a point-to-point distance measurement and the angle
`detected by the angle sensitive transducer 210.” Id. at 15:65–16:3. Range
`finder 179’s programmed data processor 202 is coupled to point-to-point
`measuring device 214 to receive distance information. Id. at 15:55–60.
`Hargrove describes that point-to-point measuring device 214 “may comprise
`a laser point-to-point measuring device.” Id. at 15:55–57.7
`Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s showing. See generally
`PO Resp. For the reasons given, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments
`and evidence support a finding that Hargrove teaches claim element 1(a),
`i.e., “a range finder supported on a bow incorporating the auto-correcting
`
`
`7 Patent Owner’s dispute regarding element 1(a) in the Preliminary Response
`was premised on its implicit construction for “a range finder supported on a
`bow incorporating the auto-correcting bow sight,” which we did not adopt.
`Inst. Dec. 8–11. As we discussed above with respect to claim construction,
`we maintain our claim construction determination in the Decision to
`Institute. See supra § III.C. After consideration of the complete record
`before us, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions and evidence for the
`reasons given in this Decision, as well as the reasons given in our Decision
`to Institute (see Inst. Dec. 17–19).
`
`22
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`bow sight, the range finder determining a range to a target.” Ex. 1001,
`15:54–56.
`
`Element 1(b)
`c.
`Claim element 1(b) is “an inclinometer supported on the bow and
`determining an angle of inclination of the bow.” Ex. 1001, 15:57–58.
`Relying on the testimony of Dr. Cross, Petitioner asserts that “a POSITA
`would understand the inclination angle measured by the inclinometer as the
`angle of the bow from horizontal.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:20–27;
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 63). Petitioner points to Hargrove’s transducer 3