Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 97
`Date: November 30, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PRECISION PLANTING, LLC and AGCO CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`DEERE & COMPANY,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2019-01046
`Patent 9,480,199 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
`BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and TIMOTHY J. GOODSON,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`Denying in Part and Dismissing in Part Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`Dismissing Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01046
`Patent 9,480,199 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`A. Background and Summary
`Precision Planting, LLC and AGCO Corp. (collectively, “Petitioner”)
`filed a Petition (Paper 4, “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1
`and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 9,480,199 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’199 patent”). Deere
`& Company (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 9. With
`our authorization, the parties filed additional pre-institution briefing. See
`Paper 11; Paper 12. We instituted an inter partes review on both challenged
`claims on the sole ground asserted in the Petition. See Paper 17 (“Dec. on
`Inst.”). After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`Response. (Paper 36, “PO Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 59, “Pet.
`Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 71, “Sur-Reply”). We
`held a hearing on August 31, 2020, a transcript of which is included in the
`record. See Paper 94 (“Tr.”). The parties have also filed motions to
`exclude, which we address below in Section II.
`We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Petitioner bears the burden of
`proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and the burden of
`persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l
`Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner
`must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2019). This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown
`by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 3 of the ’199 patent are
`unpatentable.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01046
`Patent 9,480,199 B2
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner lists the following entities as real parties in interest:
`Precision Planting, LLC; AGCO Corp.; Monsanto Co.; and Bayer AG. See
`Pet. 7. Patent Owner lists only itself as a real party in interest. Paper 6, 1.
`C. Related Matters
`Patent Owner has asserted the ’199 patent against Petitioner in Deere
`& Company v. AGCO Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00827-CFC in
`the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Pet. 8; Paper 6, 1.
`In addition, Petitioner lists the following Board proceedings as related
`matters:
`
`Case No.
`IPR2019-01044
`IPR2019-01047
`IPR2019-01048
`IPR2019-01050
`IPR2019-01051
`IPR2019-01052
`IPR2019-01053
`IPR2019-01054
`IPR2019-01055
`
`Challenged Patent
`U.S. Patent No. 8,813,663
`U.S. Patent No. 9,510,502
`U.S. Patent No. 9,686,906
`U.S. Patent No. 9,807,922
`U.S. Patent No. 9,807,924
`U.S. Patent No. 9,820,429
`U.S. Patent No. 9,861,031
`U.S. Patent No. 10,004,173
`U.S. Patent No. 9,699,955
`
`Pet. 8.
`D. The ’199 Patent
`The ’199 patent issued November 1, 2016 from an application filed
`April 16, 2014. Ex. 1001, at [45], [22]. The ’199 patent states that it is a
`continuation of Application No. 13/943,561, filed July 16, 2013 (which
`matured into the ’663 patent that is the subject of IPR2019-01044), which is
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01046
`Patent 9,480,199 B2
`a continuation of application No. 12/364,010, filed February 2, 2000. Id. at
`[63].
`
`The ’199 patent relates to a seeding machine having a seed metering
`system and a seed delivery system for delivering seed from the meter to the
`ground. Ex. 1001, 1:14–16. In the “Background of the Invention,” the ’199
`patent explains that in known seed delivery systems, differences in how
`individual seeds exit the metering system and drop through the seed delivery
`tubes cause undesirable variations in seed spacing. Id. at 1:62–65. The ’199
`patent describes that its system reduces seed spacing variability by capturing
`the seed, and then moving it, on a controlled descent from the point at which
`it exits the metering system to a point near the bottom of the seed trench, so
`that the seed is discharged at a substantially zero horizontal speed relative to
`the ground. Id. at 2:25–40.
`Referring to Figure 3 of the ’199 patent (reproduced below), seed
`stored in a seed hopper is provided to a seed meter that uses vacuum disk 50
`to meter the seed to seed delivery system 28 that carries the seed to a
`planting furrow. Ex. 1001, 3:19–24.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01046
`Patent 9,480,199 B2
`
`
`Figure 3 depicts an enlarged side view of a seed delivery system of one
`embodiment of the invention. Ex. 1001, 2:46–49.
`Metering disk 50 is generally flat with a plurality of apertures 52 that
`collect seeds 56 from a seed pool, which “adhere to the disk by air pressure
`differential on the opposite sides of the disk 50 in a known manner.” Ex.
`1001, 3:37–41. Seed delivery system 28 “includes a housing 48 positioned
`adjacent the seed disk 50.” Ex. 1001, 3:41–45. Housing 48 includes upper
`opening 58 that “admits the seed from the metering disk 50 into the
`housing,” and “lower housing opening 78 . . . positioned as close to the
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01046
`Patent 9,480,199 B2
`bottom 80 of the seed trench as possible,” through which the seed is
`discharged into the seed trench. Id. at 3:50–54, 62–64, 4:43–44.1
`Pulleys 60, 62, mounted inside housing 48, support belt 64 for rotation
`within the housing. Ex. 1001, 3:54–58. The belt has elongated bristles 70,
`which serve to capture the seed. Id. at 3:58, 4:25–26. Loading wheel 86
`adjacent upper opening 58 is positioned such that the path of the seeds on
`disk 50 brings the seeds into nip 88 formed between the loading wheel and
`distal ends 74 of bristles 70. Id. at 4:1–4:6.
`As belt 64 rotates counterclockwise around the pulleys, the curve of
`the pulley causes distal ends 74 of bristles 70 to separate from one another.
`Ex. 1001, 4:15–20. When the disk brings the seeds into nip 88, the seeds are
`transferred from the seed meter to the delivery system. Id. at 4:22–27.
`Specifically, as the curved path straightens, the bristle ends close upon
`themselves and capture the seeds. Id. at 4:28–32. As the belt continues to
`move, bristles 70 convey the seeds downward to housing lower opening 78,
`with sidewall 53 of the housing cooperating with bristles 70 to hold the seed
`in the bristles. Id. at 4:32–36.
`E. Challenged Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1 and 3. Claim 1 is reproduced below,
`with bracketed labels as added by Petitioner:
`1.
`[Pre] A seeding machine, comprising:
`[a] a seed meter which includes a metering member with a
`plurality of apertures in a circular array, [b] the seed meter
`
`
`1 The ’199 patent specifies that “[t]he term ‘upper opening’ shall be
`construed to mean an open area before the side wall segment 53a in the
`direction of belt travel and the term ‘lower opening’ shall mean an open area
`after the side wall segment 53a in the direction of belt travel.” Id. at 5:35–
`39.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01046
`Patent 9,480,199 B2
`configured to move individual seeds sequentially along a first
`path to a release position;
`[c] a delivery system which moves the individual seeds in a
`second path from the release position to a discharge position
`adjacent a seed furrow formed in soil beneath the seeding
`machine; and
`[d] a blocking loading surface which blocks movement of the
`individual seeds along the first path and permits redirection and
`movement of the individual seeds along the second path as the
`individual seeds are moved to the discharge position.
`Ex. 1001 at 7:50–8:9; see also Pet. 57–80 (adding labels). Claim 3 depends
`from claim 1 and adds that “the metering member is configured to use a
`pressure differential to retain individual seeds on the metering member.”
`Ex. 1001, 8:17–19.
`
`F. Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable based
`on the following ground:
`
`Basis2 Claims Challenged
`References
`§ 103(a) 1 and 3
`Hedderwick,3 Koning,4 and Yamahata5
`Pet. 43. In support of its proposed ground, Petitioner relies on the testimony
`of Mr. Douglas S. Prairie. See Ex. 1002; Ex. 1135. Patent Owner relies on
`
`
`2 The relevant sections of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`Pub. L. No. 112–29, took effect on March 16, 2013. Because the application
`that issued as the ’199 patent states that it is a continuation of an application
`filed before March 16, 2013, we apply the pre-AIA versions of this statute.
`See 35 U.S.C. § 100(i).
`3 GB 2,057,835 A, published Apr. 8, 1981 (Ex. 1003, “Hedderwick”).
`4 US 4,193,523, issued Mar. 18, 1980 (Ex. 1004, “Koning”).
`5 Japanese Utility Model Registration Publication S56-24815U, published
`Mar. 6, 1981 (Ex. 1014). Citations to Yamahata in this decision refer to the
`English translation in Exhibit 1011.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01046
`Patent 9,480,199 B2
`the testimony of Dr. James L. Glancey. See Ex. 2205.6 The record also
`includes testimony from several witnesses on topics relating to objective
`indicia of nonobviousness.
`II. MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE
`The party moving to exclude evidence bears the burden of proving
`that it is entitled to the relief requested—namely, that the material sought to
`be excluded is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”).
`See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.62(a) (2019).
`A. Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`1. Brush Belt Videos and Photographs
`Petitioner moves to exclude Exhibits 2141–2143, 2186, 2187, and
`2198 under FRE 901 as lacking authentication. Paper 72, 1, 4–10.
`Petitioner also argues that the testimony of Dr. Glancey regarding these
`
`
`6 Petitioner argues that Dr. Glancey’s testimony is unreliable because he “is
`a professional expert witness” who has served as an expert in 144 matters
`regarding a range of technologies, but has never served as an expert in seed
`planting technologies; because his opinions have been excluded by courts on
`three occasions; because he holds four patents that do not relate to seed
`planting technologies; because he allegedly “conceded that he does not
`understand what the test for obviousness of a patent was in 2003 or in
`2009;” and because his answers at his deposition were allegedly inadequate
`in various ways. See Pet. Reply 2–4. Patent Owner responds that
`Dr. Glancey is a mechanical engineering professor and professional engineer
`who has “extensive person and professional experience with farming and
`seed-planting equipment” and that the three instances in which his testimony
`was excluded were personal injury litigations unrelated to seed-planting
`equipment. Sur-Reply 32–34. Patent Owner also attacks the qualifications
`of Mr. Prairie and asserts that his declaration and deposition testimony has
`been flawed in various ways. Id. We have considered Petitioner’s and
`Patent Owner’s arguments in assessing the weight to be given to
`Dr. Glancey’s and Mr. Prairie’s testimony. We note that neither party has
`moved to exclude Dr. Glancey’s or Mr. Prairie’s testimony.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01046
`Patent 9,480,199 B2
`exhibits should be excluded. Id. at 10–12. The exhibits at issue are videos
`and photographs of brush belts. Petitioner argues that these videos and
`photographs are unreliable and should be excluded, because Deere has not
`provided sufficient information about the brush belt that is the subject of the
`videos and photographs and the circumstances in which the videos and
`photographs were made. Id. at 4–8. Petitioner further argues that Dr.
`Glancey’s testimony does not authenticate the videos, because he did not
`create them and was unable to answer certain questions about the brush
`belts’ characteristics during his deposition. Id. at 9–10.
`Petitioner’s arguments do not persuade us that Patent Owner’s
`showing is insufficient under FRE 901. A proponent’s “burden of proof for
`authentication is slight.” Lexington Insurance Co. v. Western Pennsylvania
`Hospital, 423 F.3d 318, 328 (3rd Cir. 2015). Under FRE 901, the proponent
`must make a showing “sufficient to support a finding that the item is what
`the proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a); see also United States v.
`Coohey, 11 F.3d 97, 99 (8th Cir. 1993) (“To meet this standard, the
`proponent need only demonstrate a rational basis for its claim that the
`evidence is what the proponent asserts it to be.”). Once that threshold is
`satisfied, “the evidence goes to the [fact-finder] and it is the [fact-finder]
`who will ultimately determine the authenticity of the evidence.” Threadgill
`v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 928 F.2d 1366, 1375 (3rd Cir. 1991). Here,
`Dr. Glancey’s testimony is adequate to support a finding that these videos
`and photographs are what Patent Owner claims they are, i.e., brush belts
`being operated in various ways. See Ex. 2205 ¶¶ 166–170. Petitioner’s
`criticisms of the videos and photographs go to the weight that should be
`assigned to the videos and photographs, and Dr. Glancey’s testimony about
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01046
`Patent 9,480,199 B2
`them, and we have considered Petitioner’s arguments in assessing the weight
`those materials should carry.
`Additionally, the nature of our proceedings, in which the same panel
`that decides admissibility also serves as the fact-finder, disfavors exclusion
`in these circumstances. See Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-
`00053, Paper 66, 19 (PTAB May 1, 2014) (sitting as a non-jury tribunal, the
`Board may assign appropriate weight to evidence presented) (citing
`Donnelly Garment Co. v. NLRB, 123 F.2d 215, 224 (8th Cir. 1941)). As the
`Donnelly court observed, “[o]ne who is capable of ruling accurately upon
`the admissibility of evidence is equally capable of sifting it accurately after
`it has been received . . . .” 123 F.2d at 224.
`Thus, we deny Petitioner’s motion to exclude the videos, photographs,
`and Dr. Glancey’s testimony about those videos and photographs.
`2. Dr. Glancey’s Redirect Testimony
`Next, Petitioner argues that Dr. Glancey’s testimony in response to
`leading questions should be excluded. Paper 72, 12–13. The portions of Dr.
`Glancey’s deposition testimony that Petitioner argues should be excluded are
`his responses during redirect at Exhibit 1115, pages 267–68. See id. We do
`not rely on those portions of Dr. Glancey’s testimony, so we dismiss as moot
`this aspect of Petitioner’s motion.
`3. Exhibits 2249 and 2257
`Finally, Petitioner argues that Exhibits 2249 and 22
`57 should be excluded as untimely. Paper 72, 13. Because we do not
`rely on those exhibits in our analysis, we dismiss as moot this aspect of
`Petitioner’s motion as well.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01046
`Patent 9,480,199 B2
`4. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, we deny Petitioner’s motion to exclude as
`to Exhibits 2141–2143, 2186, 2187, and 2198, and we dismiss as moot the
`remainder of Petitioner’s motion to exclude.
`B. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1049–50, 1052, 1054, 1068,
`1073, 1077–78, 1086–87, 1089, 1091–92, 1103, 1113–15, 1123, 1131–33
`and paragraphs 89–137 of Exhibit 1135. Paper 75, 15. Most of these
`contested materials relate to the parties’ arguments on objective indicia of
`nonobviousness, which is an issue we do not reach. Accordingly, we do not
`rely on most of these exhibits in our analysis. The contested exhibits that we
`do cite in this Decision are Exhibits 1113, 1114, 1115, and 1133. These
`exhibits are transcripts from Dr. Glancey’s depositions. However, Patent
`Owner does not actually seek exclusion of those exhibits, only consideration
`of errata sheets that Dr. Glancey prepared for those transcripts, which Patent
`Owner filed as Exhibits 2266–69. See id. at 10–11. We also cite below to
`Exhibit 1135, which is Mr. Prairie’s Reply Declaration, but not the
`paragraphs Patent Owner challenges, which relate to objective indicia of
`nonobviousness. Because we do not rely on the materials that Patent Owner
`seeks to exclude, and also because we would ultimately find for Patent
`Owner even without excluding these exhibits, we dismiss as moot Patent
`Owner’s motion to exclude.
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`The level of skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view
`the prior art and the claimed invention, supplying “an important guarantee of
`objectivity in the process” of assessing an obviousness case. Okajima v.
`Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Factors pertinent to a
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01046
`Patent 9,480,199 B2
`determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the
`inventor’s educational level; (2) type of problems encountered in the art;
`(3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations
`are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of
`workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d
`693, 696–697 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All
`Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
`“Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these
`or other factors may predominate in a particular case.” Id. Moreover,
`“[t]hese factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the
`level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd, Inc. v. Apotex,
`Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would
`have had either (1) a bachelor’s degree plus four years of experience in
`mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field; or (2) a
`master’s degree plus two years of experience in mechanical engineering,
`agricultural engineering, or a related field.” Pet. 57 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21–
`22). In the testimony the Petition cites in support of that proposal,
`Mr. Prairie lists factors that are typically considered in assessing the level of
`ordinary skill in the art, and then states “[b]ased on these factors together
`with my experience and expertise,” his opinion of the level of ordinary skill
`in the art is the same as Petitioner proposes. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21–22. This
`conclusory testimony is entitled to little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)
`(“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on
`which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).
`Patent Owner proposes that the ordinarily skilled artisan “would have
`an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, agricultural
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01046
`Patent 9,480,199 B2
`engineering, or closely related field” plus “about two years of experience
`designing agricultural products or related machinery in industry or
`academia.” PO Resp. 2–3 (citing Ex. 2205 ¶¶ 47–52). Patent Owner also
`proposes that the level of ordinary skill in the art could be achieved without
`an undergraduate engineering degree, through “about five years of
`experience designing agricultural products or related machinery.” Id.
`Dr. Glancey explains that, in his opinion, Petitioner’s proposed level of
`ordinary skill is “too restrictive and sets the level of ordinary skill in the art
`of the ’199 Patent too high.” Ex. 2205 ¶ 49. Dr. Glancey provides three
`reasons why he holds this opinion: (1) undergraduate engineering
`curriculums in place in February 2009 focused on design at the freshman
`level and continued this focus throughout the student’s degree program, thus
`mitigating the need for significant post-graduate design experience
`(id. at ¶ 50); (2) Masters programs in engineering focus on research for
`publication in peer-reviewed journals, rather than designing products for
`industry (id. at ¶ 51); and (3) engineering technicians, who may not have
`formal engineering degrees, “often have years’ worth of relevant hands-on
`experience,” which, in Dr. Glancey’s opinion, qualifies him or her to be
`“considered POSITAs with respect to the ’199 Patent” (id. at ¶ 52).
`Based on the evidence and arguments of record, we determine that the
`evidence favors Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill. Our determination
`is primarily based on Dr. Glancey’s analysis and reasons summarized above,
`as well as the prior art of record and the sophistication of the technology of
`the ’199 patent. We have considered Mr. Prairie’s opinion, but we give that
`testimony minimal weight due to the lack of supporting explanation.
`Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary
`skill in the art. Specifically, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01046
`Patent 9,480,199 B2
`the art would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering,
`agricultural engineering, or a similar field, and two years of experience
`designing agricultural products or related machinery. Alternatively, a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would have had five years of experience designing
`agricultural products or related machinery, without a four-year
`undergraduate engineering degree.
`However, we note that the differences between the parties’ proposed
`definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art are not determinative. The
`analysis below would be materially the same under either party’s proposed
`definition.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`“In an inter partes review proceeding, a claim of a patent . . . shall be
`construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to
`construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 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,
`51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective
`November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)).7 That
`standard “includ[es] construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary
`and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill
`in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.; see also
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the
`parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed “to the extent
`
`
`7 The Petition in this case was filed May 29, 2019. See Paper 5, 1.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01046
`Patent 9,480,199 B2
`necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`(applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).
`V. OBVIOUSNESS OVER HEDDERWICK, KONING, AND BENAC
`A. Legal Standards for Obviousness
`In Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), the
`Supreme Court set out a framework for assessing obviousness under § 103
`that requires consideration of four factors: (1) the “level of ordinary skill in
`the pertinent art,” (2) the “scope and content of the prior art,” (3) the
`“differences between the prior art and the claims at issue,” and (4) when in
`evidence, “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness such as
`“commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc.”
`Id. at 17–18. When a combination of references together discloses all of the
`limitations in a claim, the Board “must determine whether there was an
`‘apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by
`the patent at issue,’ and whether a person of skill in the art at the time of the
`invention would have had a ‘reasonable expectation of success’ in pursuing
`that combination.’” Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute v. Eli Lilly
`& Co., 849 F.3d 1049, 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v.
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) and Genzyme Therapeutic Prods.
`Ltd. v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
`B. Summary of Cited Prior Art References
`1. Hedderwick
`Hedderwick relates to a precision seeder, which it defines as “a
`seeding device able to deposit single seeds at predetermined spacings.”
`Ex. 1003, 1:5–8. The seeder includes a seed hopper that transfers seed to a
`rotating vacuum disc, which has orifices around its periphery that receive
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01046
`Patent 9,480,199 B2
`and retain seeds by pressure differential. Id. at 3:46–52. Figure 2 is
`reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts a side elevation view of a seeder casing with
`the disc in place and with a surface portion broken away
`to illustrate the operation of the seeder. Id. at 1:100–101.
`The vacuum disc rotates in a counterclockwise direction, past various
`devices, to ensure that a single seed is retained by the orifice, and continues
`to rotate until the “seeds have passed the end of vacuum inlet 78 at about 7
`o’clock.” Ex. 1003, 3:45–61. When the seeds’ “associated vacuum holes 94
`are in register with recess 84 in the wear plate 80,” the seeds drop into a cell
`bounded by fins 90. Id. at 3:55–63. The seed falls from the cell when it
`reaches drop off lip 108, which is positioned slightly past bottom dead
`center. Id. at 3:66–73.
`Hedderwick describes a second embodiment for use when “the
`vertical distance to be travelled by the seeds is greater.” Ex. 1003, 4:2–5.
`Figure 4 is reproduced below:
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01046
`Patent 9,480,199 B2
`
`
`Figure 4 depicts a side elevation view of a seeder with
`parts broken away. Id. at 1:108–109.
`Disc 130 of the second embodiment can have the same construction as
`disc 70 shown in Figure 2, although disc 130 rotates in a clockwise direction
`in Figure 4. Id. at 4:10–13, 5:51–53. “The major change in the seeder is the
`provision of an endless belt 134 which has a series of fins 135 projecting
`upwardly therefrom.” Id. at 4:23–25. Fins 135, together with casing 137
`and belt 134, define a series of moving cells. Id. at 4:23–28; Fig. 4. These
`“cells are synchronised to align with orifices 129 of disc 130,” such that
`when disc 130 releases a seed it is released into a cell and each cell carries a
`seed. Id. at 4:28–5:5. Belt 134 passes over idler sprocket 152 and driven
`sprocket 132, which drives the belt and thus seeds 148 in the cells, to an end
`of casing 137 where the seed is discharged. Id. at 5:6–7, 74–78; Fig. 4.
`2. Koning
`Koning “relates to a planting machine for potatoes, bulbs or similar
`seed crop.” Ex. 1004, 1:5–6. Figure 4 is reproduced below:
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01046
`Patent 9,480,199 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 4 depicts an end part of a planting machine
`schematically in a side view. Id. at 3:32–33.
`The planting machine includes conveying member 23 having part 40 that
`extends in a backward direction to a point in furrow 41. Id. at 5:3–6. Belt
`44 is above part or portion 40 of conveying member 41, is guided around
`rollers 42 and 43, and includes brush hairs 45. Id. at 5:6–8. Brush hairs 45
`of belt 44 hold the seed crop on part 40 of belt or conveying member 23 so
`that the seed crop delivered by the conveying members are delivered at “the
`same distance in relation to each other in the furrow 41.” Id. at 5:8–14.
`Specifically, “the brush hairs hold the potatoes or the like lying on the
`conveying surface [23] till the moment that they leave the belt.” Id. at 3:16–
`18. Thus, in Koning, it is the combination of two belts or conveying
`members, belt 44 with brush hairs 45, and belt 23 that function together to
`convey seeds to furrow 41. Id. at 5:11–14. By holding the potatoes or the
`like “till the very last moment . . . the velocity of the potatoes in relation to
`each other is completely defined. Under all circumstances a regular
`distribution of the potatoes in the furrow is obtained.” Id. at 3:18–22.
`3. Yamahata
` Yamahata relates to “a device for guiding falling seeds in a vacuum
`seeder.” Ex. 1011, 2:26–27. The vacuum seeder includes a rotating seed
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01046
`Patent 9,480,199 B2
`board in which a vacuum is created to suction seeds into seed holes, and
`when the vacuum is shut off, the seeds drop from the seed holes. Id. at
`2:29–34. Figures 1 and 2 are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a cross-sectional view showing a vacuum
`seeder using an exemplary guide device, and Figure 2 is a
`cross-sectional view from II-II in Figure 1. Ex. 1011, 4:27–30.
`As seen in Figures 1 and 2, seed board 1 is part of rotating body 2, and
`includes a plurality of seed holes 4 that “are formed in the seed board 1 at
`equal circumferential spacing,” and shut roller 6 “closes the seed holes 4
`from the inside at a predetermined position.” Id. at 3:12–22.
`
`Yamahata discloses that “some seeds get stuck in the seed holes and
`do not drop from the seed holes even when the suction is stopped by the shut
`roller.” Id. at 2:35–37. Thus, Yamahata uses guide 10 having guide surface
`17 “intersecting the trajectory of the seed holes 4,” so that “the seed 16 is
`guided along the guide surface 17 of the guide 10 and is removed from the
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01046
`Patent 9,480,199 B2
`seed hole 4.” Id. at 3:34–35, 4:11–13. In this way, if a seed is stuck in seed
`hole 4 and “does not fall from the seed hole 4 even after the suctioning force
`has been lost in the seed hole 4 due to the shut roller 6, the guide 10 forcibly
`removes the seed from the seed hole 4,” so that “all seeds 16 drop from the
`seed board 1 at a predetermined position as indicated by arrow B, and the
`sowing interval at which each seed drops is regular.” Id. at 4:13–20.
`C. Claim 1
`1. Overview of the Parties’ Contentions
`Petitioner contends that the combination of Hedderwick, Koning, and
`Yamahata together teaches every limitation in claim 1 and that an ordinarily
`skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the references to yield
`the claimed invention. See Pet. 36–45, 57–80. To briefly summarize the
`manner in which Petitioner relies on the cited references, Petitioner contends
`that Hedderwick teaches the preamble and limitations [a] and [b]. See id. at
`57–63. As to limitation [c], Petitioner proposes modifying Hedderwick by
`replacing finned belt 134 with Koning’s brush belt, and contends that
`Hedderwick so modified teaches a “delivery system” as recited in
`limitation [c]. See id. at 64–74.8 Petitioner contends that Yamahata’s seed
`guide corresponds to the “blocking loading surface” recited in limitation [d],
`and that when Yamahata’s seed guide is incorporated into Hedderwick and
`Koning, the resulting combination teaches every aspect of limitation [d].
`See id. at 74–80.
`
`
`8 We note that the claim does not expressly recite a brush belt, and we do not
`hold that a “delivery system” requires a brush belt. However, as discussed
`in greater detail below (see infra pp. 23-25), the sole challenge as Petitioner
`framed it includes Koning’s brush belt, so that is the challenge we must
`evaluate.
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01046
`Patent 9,480,199 B2
`The Petition includes the following modified version of Hedderwick’s
`Figure 4 to illustrate how Petitioner proposes to combine Hedderwick,
`Koning, and Yamahata:
`
`
`Pet. 80. In Petitioner’s drawing, Yamahata’s seed guide (colorized yellow)
`is added adjacent Hedderwick’s seed meter disc (colorized blue), and
`Koning’s brush belt (colorized purple) is substituted for Hedderwick’s
`finned belt. Id. at 78–80.
`According to Petitioner, ordinarily skilled artisans would have been
`motivated to replace Hedderwick’s finned belt with Koning’s brush belt, in
`order to improve the accuracy of seed spacing. See id. at 42–43.
`Specifically, Petitioner argues that in Hedderwick, seeds can move within
`the cells of the finned belt, which means that Hedderwick’s endless belt does
`not completely define the relationship between seeds. Id. at 41. According
`to Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan “desiring finer seed spacing would
`
`21
`
`