`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`––––––––––––––
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––––––
`
`PRECISION PLANTING LLC, AGCO CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`DEERE & COMPANY,
`Patent Owner
`
`––––––––––––––
`
`IPR2019-01048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,686,906
`
`––––––––––––––
`
`
`PATENT OWNER SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`C.
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. OBJECTIVE INDICIA DEMONSTRATES NONOBVIOUSNESS ............ 3
`IV. KONING IS NON-ANALOGOUS ART ..................................................... 13
`V. A POSA WOULD HAVE NO MOTIVATION TO COMBINE AND
`NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF SUCCESS ................................ 14
`A.
`Petitioners Mischaracterize Deere’s Arguments ................................ 14
`B.
`A POSA Would Have Had No Motivation or Reasonable
`Expectation of Success to Use Koning’s Brush-belt in
`Hedderwick ........................................................................................ 15
`Petitioners’ Proposed Combination Would Not Achieve the
`Claimed “Seed Delivery System” ...................................................... 28
`Petitioners’ Combination would not “Eject” or “Flex” to
`“Discharge”/“Eject” ........................................................................... 29
`Deere’s Arguments Are Entirely Consistent ...................................... 30
`E.
`Petitioners Are Judicially Estopped ................................................... 31
`F.
`VI. PETITIONERS’ WRONGLY ATTACK DR. GLANCEY ......................... 33
`
`
`
`D.
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Demaco Corp. v. F Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd.,
`851 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .......................................................................... 10
`Fanduel, Inc. v. Interactive Games LLC,
`2020 WL 4342681 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 29, 2020) ................................................... 1, 22
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku, Ltd.,
`535 U.S. 722 (2002) ............................................................................................ 33
`Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC,
`944 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 10
`Haynes Int’l, Inc. v. Jessop Steel Co.,
`8 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .............................................................................. 31
`Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC,
`938 F.3d 1324 ..................................................................................................... 14
`High Point SARL v. Sprint Nextel Corp.,
`817 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 31
`K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC,
`751 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 17, 28
`In re Klein,
`647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 32
`KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .................................................................................. 1, 14, 32
`Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01129, Paper 33, 33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) .............................. 9, 10, 12
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 21
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 14
`
`ii
`
`
`
`New Hampshire v. Maine,
`532 U.S. 742 (2001) ................................................................................ 31, 32, 33
`Next Caller Inc. v. TrustID, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00039, Paper 77, 20 (PTAB Feb. 24, 2020) ........................................ 34
`Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`678 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 15
`Perry v. Blum,
`629 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) ................................................................................... 31
`Power-One Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies Inc.,
`599 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 12
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC,
`925 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 20
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu,
`128 S.Ct. 1348 (2018) ......................................................................................... 29
`TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Systems, Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 17
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 32
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 9
`Wilson v. Martin,
`789 Fed.App’x 861 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................. 31
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §316(e) ...................................................................................................... 1
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. §1.97(h) ................................................................................................... 33
`37 C.F.R. §42.6(e) .................................................................................................... 37
`37 C.F.R. §42.24 ...................................................................................................... 36
`
`iii
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.65(a) .................................................................................................. 35
`37 CPR. §42.65(a) .................................................................................................. 35
`
`iv
`
`iV
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,686,906
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioners cannot explain why, if it were so obvious based on thirty-year-
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`old references, others did not develop the claimed inventions earlier, given the
`
`need to increase productivity by planting faster while maintaining spacing
`
`accuracy. Precision’s own failures are undisputed, as is its praise of its own
`
`eventual success. POR 43-44 (moon shot). The extensive record evidence confirms
`
`that Petitioners engage in “the distortion caused by hindsight bias.” KSR Intern.
`
`Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
`
`This bias is apparent when considered against Precision’s characterization of
`
`Koning when it sought its own patent. As Precision persuasively argued then,
`
`Koning “is not directed to a seed planter for row crops” and a POSA “would not be
`
`motivated to look for planters for planting potatoes or bulbs.” Ex.2001-7-Sauder-
`
`File-History, 318. Petitioners’ current litigation-inspired arguments completely
`
`contradict this representation. They attempt to swap Koning’s brush into
`
`Hedderwick’s system, treating the prior art as a parts catalog. Petitioners must
`
`prove all propositions of unpatentability. Fanduel, Inc. v. Interactive Games LLC,
`
`2020 WL 4342681, 6 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 29, 2020); 35 U.S.C. §316(e). They have not
`
`done so. Validity should be confirmed.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,686,906
`
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Petitioners state that Deere’s construction of “ejecting” and “flexes to
`
`
`
`discharge/eject” are “inconsistent with the intrinsic evidence and contrary to
`
`positions Deere took in the district court.” Reply 1. This is demonstrably false.
`
`Ex.1134-Final-Joint-Claim-Construction-Brief, 55-57, 60-62.
`
`Petitioners argue that “flexes to discharge,” “flexes to eject,” and “eject”
`
`(dependent claims 4, 6 and 13) refer only to the opening of the bristles as they go
`
`around the lower pulley. Reply 28. However, the passage Petitioners cite—
`
`Ex.1001-906-Patent, 4:17-22—relates to seed entry into the brush at the upper
`
`pulley. Bristles opening at the lower pulley—not referenced in Petitioners’ cited
`
`passage—aids in seed release when a brush-belt endless member is used. But the
`
`express purpose of the claimed flexing is not merely to release seed; it is “to
`
`discharge” or “to eject” seed.
`
`The specification attributes seed acceleration at the lower pulley to “bristle
`
`distal ends” which “propel[]”seeds over ramp 84 and “discharge[]” them. Id., 4:39-
`
`46. Longer bristles “increase the speed of the seed as it travels around the pulley
`
`[but] [w]ith a short bristle, there will be little acceleration…as the seed travels
`
`around the pulley[].” Id., 4:66-5:4. Seeds will experience some tangential
`
`acceleration by traveling around the lower pulley, but that acceleration would exist
`
`whether or not the non-base-portions—e.g., brush-belt’s bristles, or flighted-belt’s
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,686,906
`
`
`flights—flex. The claim limitations must logically refer to something more: the
`
`
`
`flexing of the non-base-portions, not the belt base. Ex.2206-Glancey-Decl., ¶¶66-
`
`71.
`
`III. OBJECTIVE INDICIA DEMONSTRATES NONOBVIOUSNESS
`Petitioners make little attempt to rebut the vast objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness, including:
`
`• Long-felt need to increase productivity by planting faster while
`
`maintaining spacing accuracy. POR 39-41.
`
`• Precision’s own multiple, failed attempts to develop a high-speed
`
`planter based on the Sauder patent design, which lacked reliable seed
`
`transfer. Ex.2115-Larkin-SpeedTube-Tutorial (“elephant trunk” with
`
`belt “dropped down” to the bottom of the seed trench “didn’t work
`
`because of the acceleration things that Jason [Stoller] talked about [in
`
`Ex.2113-Stoller-SpeedTube-Tutorial-1]”). POR 43-44.
`
`• Industry skepticism that a solution could be found, including from
`
`Sauder, Ex.2111-Sauder-SpeedTube-Tutorial-1, 0:25-1:00 (“Farming
`
`with speed, really?…[I] used to say…when you’re planting if you go
`
`over 5-mph I’m not going to rent you my farm”), and Dr. Taylor’s
`
`own surprise at ExactEmerge’s results. Ex.2257-No-Till-Farmer-
`
`Nov.-2015, 7; POR 46-48.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,686,906
`
`
`
`• Widespread praise for, and success of, ExactEmerge and SpeedTube.
`
`
`
`POR 56-79.
`
`• Deere’s own false starts. POR 44-45.
`
`Dr. Glancey provided detailed charts, corroborated by examination and
`
`testing of both products, demonstrating that they practice the challenged claims.
`
`Ex.2216-906-ExactEmerge-Chart, Ex.2226-906-SpeedTube-Chart. Further, he
`
`carefully explained the nexus between the objective evidence and the claims. POR
`
`48-56, 68-79; Ex.2206-Glancey-Decl., ¶¶271-272, 305-306.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01048
`
`IPR2019-01048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,686,906
`US. Patent No. 9,686,906
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RELIABLE SEED TRANSFER
`
`Seed delivery apparatus has a BrushBelt
`(endless member) that, with the help of a
`
`knockout wheel, removes the seed from
`the meter by capturing the seed
`
`
`
`CONTROLLED SEED DESCENT
`
`Seed, captured in the bristles of
`
`BrushBelt, is conveyed through elongated
`
`interior chamber at a first velocity by the
`BrushBelt
`
`SEED PROPELLED AT DISCHARGE
`
`Seed is accelerated to a second, higher
`
`velocity, and propelled and ejected at
`
`discharge, by the flexing of the
`BrushBelt‘s bristles
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,686,906
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners argue “planters could plant at high speeds before the
`
`ExactEmerge.” Reply 32. But before Deere’s invention, “higher speed meant poor
`
`spacing,” which lowers yield. Ex.2118-SpeedTube-Video, 0:28-0:35; Ex.2139-
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,686,906
`
`
`SpeedTube-Website (“As speeds increase, conventional planters struggle to
`
`
`
`maintain good spacing.”).1
`
`Petitioners’ claim that no evidence links ExactEmerge’s ability to plant at
`
`higher speeds to the claimed features, Reply 31-33, is contradicted by voluminous
`
`videos, writings and testimony linking ExactEmerge’s faster planting ability to its
`
`use of a knockout-wheel and BrushBelt to “remove[] seed from the meter by
`
`capturing the seed,”2 and the BrushBelt “endless member” controlling seed
`
`
`1 Petitioners’ reliance on Ex.1052, 52 is misplaced. This document, offered without
`
`foundation, addressed market definition under antitrust law and its factual
`
`statements have proven inaccurate over time. Ex.2031-Schmidt-Decl., ¶¶18-21;
`
`Ex.2032-Veale-Decl., ¶¶13-17; Ex.2033-Hough-Decl., ¶¶12-18 (initial skepticism
`
`to faster planting was overcome with experience); Ex.2111-Sauder-SpeedTube-
`
`Tutorial-1, 1:05-2:05; Ex.2117-Kauffman-SpeedTube-Tutorial, 0:00-1:02
`
`(Precision explaining drawbacks of larger/additional planters). Allegations that
`
`Precision was “innovative” in some respects, and that Deere was “falling behind,”
`
`Reply 34, are irrelevant.
`
`2 The claimed “seed delivery apparatus” must “remove[] seed from the meter by
`
`capturing.” Ex.1038, 3. Petitioners advocated that construction in the district court.
`
`Ex.1134-Final-Joint-Claim-Construction-Brief, 62.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,686,906
`
`
`descent, and propelling seed at discharge. POR 56-68. Because the witnesses were
`
`
`
`not aware of all the prior art, they did not testify that individual ExactEmerge
`
`components were “new,” Ex.1132-Veale-Dep., 175:8-19; Ex.1068-Schmidt-Dep.,
`
`83:17-87:4-9, 112:6-113:3; Ex.1131-Hough-Dep., 163:1-11, but all confirmed their
`
`declaration testimony that ExactEmerge’s success was due to the combination of
`
`features recited in the claims. E.g., Ex.1132-Veale-Dep., 132:18-133:3; 134:7-12;
`
`Ex.1068-Schmidt-Dep., 99:2-100:9; Ex.1131-Hough-Dep., 284:9-286:21, 298:3-
`
`299:15. Mr. Hough testified directly to the impact of ExactEmerge’s ability to
`
`remove seed by capturing from the meter: he has “seen…firsthand” that when the
`
`knockout-wheel was misaligned on one row unit, it failed to “insert the seed
`
`accurately into the BrushBelt” and caused unacceptable seed-to-seed ground
`
`spacing for “just that row.” Ex.1131-Hough-Dep., 296:7-298:2.
`
`Petitioners’ attacks on nexus all fail. Petitioners first argue that nexus is
`
`negated because knockout-wheels and brush-belts were known in the prior art.
`
`Reply 32-33. Petitioners are wrong. Prior art knockout-wheels were not used to
`
`“remove seed…by capturing.” Ex.2044-ExactEmerge-Sales-Essentials, 11 (“In the
`
`past…the knock out wheel only pushed out a seed that was stuck in the hole. With
`
`the ExactEmerge, the knock out wheel is used for a crisp hand off to the brush
`
`belt.”); Ex.2265-Taylor-Reply-Dep., 121:19-122:5. Prior art brush-belts were not
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,686,906
`
`
`used to convey seeds from the meter to the soil. Ex.2206-Glancey-Decl., ¶¶142-
`
`
`
`143; Ex.2264-Glancey-Dep., 117:6-12.
`
`Moreover, Petitioners mistakenly assume that nexus must be drawn to
`
`individual novel claim elements.3 Rather, nexus can be drawn, as it is here, to a
`
`novel combination of elements comprising the invention as a whole. Lectrosonics,
`
`Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 33, 33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020)
`
`(precedential) (citing WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1331 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016)). See Ex.1115-Glancey-Dep., 219:4-7 (“It’s that combination of a unique
`
`loading component and an endless member receiving seed reliably that collectively
`
`is the innovation.”); Ex.2263-Prairie-Reply-Dep., 200:14-203:8 (Petitioners’ expert
`
`unable to identify single reference showing combination).
`
`ExactEmerge’s substantial “take rate” over Deere’s much lower-priced
`
`MaxEmerge option (which shares many features with ExactEmerge) establishes
`
`
`3 Petitioners confusingly cite Deere’s argument that the proposed combination, if
`
`made, would not satisfy the “flexing”/“ejecting” limitations. Reply 31; Ex.1135,
`
`¶65. That is a separate inquiry from whether the objective indicia warrants a
`
`finding of nonobviousness, even assuming the combination satisfied all claim
`
`limitations.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,686,906
`
`
`conclusively that ExactEmerge’s success is due to the claimed combination of
`
`
`
`features, which enable faster, accurate planting. Ex.2033-Hough-Decl., ¶¶19-24.4
`
`Dr. Taylor’s own peer-reviewed study concluded that ExactEmerge maintained
`
`seed spacing accuracy at higher speeds whereas MaxEmerge could not. Ex.2191-
`
`Taylor-Study, 13.
`
`Petitioners argue nexus is negated because ExactEmerge has other
`
`unclaimed features. Reply 32-33. Petitioners offer no evidence that any other
`
`features are as critical to ExactEmerge’s success as those claimed. Deere need only
`
`show that the objective evidence is the “direct result of the unique characteristics
`
`of the claimed invention” to prove nexus. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944
`
`F.3d 1366, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Having shown objective evidence
`
`“reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims,” Lectrosonics, 32, Deere
`
`need not disprove “all imaginable contributing factors[, which] would be unfairly
`
`burdensome.” Demaco Corp. v. F Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387,
`
`1394 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Cf. Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1374 (“we have never held that
`
`the existence of one or more unclaimed features, standing alone, means nexus may
`
`
`4 Mr. Hough clarified the market share data used in his take rate analysis is relied
`
`on in the ordinary course of business. Ex.1131-Hough-Dep., 299:17-300:12.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,686,906
`
`
`not be presumed. Indeed, there is rarely a perfect correspondence between the
`
`
`
`claimed invention and the product.”) (emphasis original).
`
`ExactEmerge’s bowl-shaped meter is not required for faster, accurate
`
`planting. SpeedTube achieves this using a flat-shaped meter. Ex.1115-Glancey-
`
`Dep., 169:17-170:8. “Speed-matching” helps maintain spacing at discharge, but the
`
`claimed inventions include the critical prerequisites needed to leverage the value of
`
`that feature. Ex.1115-Glancey-Dep., 181:1-185:7 (without reliable handoff and
`
`controlled descent “speed-matching essentially results in garbage-in garbage-
`
`out.”); Ex.2113-Stoller-SpeedTube-Tutorial-1 (vertical accelerations during
`
`handoff “is what really drive[s] poor seed spacing”). Dr. Taylor agrees that
`
`“[v]ertical vibration during planting usually interferes with the seed metering and
`
`delivery process,” Ex.2191-Taylor-Study, 1, and that “vertical vibration…increases
`
`linearly with speed.” Ex.2265-Taylor-Reply-Dep., 67:15-22, 84:22-86:9.
`
`ExactEmerge and SpeedTube use an independent electric motor for speed-
`
`matching, but Dr. Taylor admitted there is no “connection between row unit
`
`vertical vibration and the fact that [ExactEmerge] has an electric motor on it,”
`
`Ex.2265-Taylor-Reply-Dep., 98:9-19. Further, speed-matching could be achieved
`
`without dual electric motors. Id., 104:1-16; Ex.1115-Glancey-Dep., 267:11-21.
`
`Petitioners’ reference to the “BrushBelt conditioner” grasps at straws.
`
`ExactEmerge is also designed to work with a controller, battery, wires, and a
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,686,906
`
`
`tractor with tires, which are “essential,” but nothing suggests these features were
`
`
`
`“critical” to its praise and success. Ex.1115-Glancey-Dep., 216:17-220:3.
`
`Petitioners also argue nexus is negated because the claims do not expressly
`
`recite high-speed operation. Reply 31-32. The ’906 Patent recognizes that “spacing
`
`variation is exacerbated by higher travel speeds.” Ex.1001-906-Patent, 1:65-67.
`
`However, claims need not expressly recite the invention’s beneficial results to
`
`establish nexus. In Lectrosonics, the Board found nexus based on evidence linking
`
`the ability to avoid “RF dropouts”—which fulfilled a long-felt need for “reliabl[y]
`
`capturing sound data from actors”—to the claimed feature of “replacing a portion
`
`of said remote audio data with said stamped local audio data.” Lectrosonics, 61-67.
`
`Here, the evidence clearly links ExactEmerge’s fulfilling the need to plant faster
`
`while maintaining seed spacing accuracy to the claimed combination of
`
`“removing…by capturing” and “endless member,” which ensure reliable hand-off
`
`and controlled descent of the seed, thus solving the “row unit ride” problem that
`
`long vexed the industry, including Precision. POR 41-42, 49-56. These features are
`
`expressly identified by witnesses, customers, industry press and Deere’s sales
`
`materials. POR 57-65. Similarly, Precision itself lauded SpeedTube’s combined
`
`use of feeder wheels and flighted belt as the key to faster, accurate planting. POR
`
`74-77. Power-One Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2010) (competitor “touted” its own infringing product).
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,686,906
`
`
`IV. KONING IS NON-ANALOGOUS ART
`Koning plants “Potatoes, Bulbs or Similar Seed Crop,” Ex.1004-Koning,
`
`
`
`which present different handling challenges from seeds because they are much
`
`larger, heavier and lack a protective seed coat. Ex.2206-Glancey-Decl., ¶¶91-133.
`
`Koning’s reference to differently-sized or irregularly-shaped potatoes (Reply 4-5)
`
`in no way suggests an ability to plant an entirely different kind of object—small
`
`seeds. Ex.2206-Glancey-Decl., ¶¶91-102, 105-139; Ex.2001-7-Sauder-File-
`
`History, 318 (“Koning…is not directed to a seed planter for row crops”).
`
`Petitioners argue “overlapping concepts were routinely used in potato, corn, and
`
`other planting systems,” Reply 5, but none of their evidence shows this. Even
`
`when corn and potatoes are planted on the same farm, they are planted using
`
`different equipment. Ex.1068-Schmidt-Dep., 31:3-21; Ex.1131-Hough-Dep.,
`
`294:12-295:22; Ex.1133-Glancey-Dep., 192:1-193:14, 197:4-200:8, 240:8-241:5,
`
`293:21-296:21; Ex.2189-Taylor-Dep., 33:8-35:5, 80:10-21, 87:22-89-25.
`
`The Faber and Williams patents, Reply 6, confirm this. Faber replaced corn-
`
`planting equipment on a frame with equipment for planting potatoes. Ex.1079-
`
`Faber, 1:77-101; Ex.2263-Prairie-Reply-Dep., 45:20-48:1. Williams taught
`
`interspersing rows of different crops in the same field by using different planting
`
`equipment to plant the different crops. Ex.1080-Williams, 12:3-8, 15:14-21;
`
`Ex.2263-Prairie-Reply-Dep., 56:18-58:15.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,686,906
`
`
`
`Petitioners argue essentially that a farmer might observe corn planters and
`
`
`
`potato planters on the same farm. Even so, these different machines handle very
`
`different materials, are from a different field of endeavor and are not reasonably
`
`pertinent to the problem facing the ’906 Patent’s inventors. POR 12-18.
`
`V. A POSA WOULD HAVE NO MOTIVATION TO COMBINE AND NO
`REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF SUCCESS
`
`Petitioners Mischaracterize Deere’s Arguments
`A.
`Deere’s “underlying premise” is not that a POSA “must physically combine
`
`Koning and Hedderwick.” Reply 6. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012), is inapposite because Deere is not arguing that a brush-belt could not be
`
`“bodily incorporated” into Hedderwick. Obviousness requires analyzing how a
`
`POSA would have viewed the prior art teachings as a whole, and whether those
`
`teachings would have motivated—or discouraged—a combination. KSR, 550 U.S.
`
`at 424-25 (“The proper question…was whether a pedal designer of ordinary
`
`skill…would have seen a benefit to upgrading Asano with a sensor.”); Henny
`
`Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1331-32 (“benefits, both lost and
`
`gained, should be weighed against one another” in evaluating motivation to
`
`combine) (emphases added). Here, numerous conflicts among the teachings of
`
`Petitioners’ references undermines any expectation of success, and would have
`
`discouraged a POSA from attempting the combination.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,686,906
`
`
`
`Deere’s argument is also not premised on operating the brush-belt at “high
`
`
`
`speed.” Reply 7. Petitioners argue it “would be simple” to use a brush-belt to
`
`convey seeds. Pet. 30. Not so. The complex dynamics of a moving brush-belt and
`
`its resistance to seed entry—even at conventional speeds of 5-mph—would have
`
`negated any expectation of success. Ex.2206-Glancey-Decl., ¶¶162-165; Ex.2186-
`
`Brush-Belt-Corn-5mph-Video; Ex.2187-Brush-Belt-No-Meter-5mph-Video.
`
`B. A POSA Would Have Had No Motivation or Reasonable
`Expectation of Success to Use Koning’s Brush-belt in Hedderwick
`Petitioners’ argument rests on the false premise that Koning teaches use of a
`
`brush-belt to “carry” potatoes/bulbs/similar seed crop. Reply 8. Koning teaches
`
`only that a brush-belt “hold[s] the potatoes lying on the conveying members 23” as
`
`they are “delivered by the conveying members” to the ground. Ex.1004-Koning,
`
`5:8-14. Petitioners’ suggestion that Koning teaches a brush-belt that can convey
`
`seeds itself is pure hindsight. POR 18-21. The only brush-belt used to convey seeds
`
`in this record is described in the ’906 Patent and embodied by ExactEmerge.5
`
`Petitioners’ argument that the ’906 Patent itself teaches how to use a brush-
`
`belt to convey seeds, Reply 7, exposes their hindsight. POR 18-21; Otsuka Pharm.
`
`
`5 Petitioners’ observation that the ’906 Patent’s brush-belt works with a housing,
`
`Reply 12-13, is irrelevant. The housing is stationary; only the brush-belt
`
`“convey[s]” seed. Ex.1001-906-Patent, 4:34-38.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,686,906
`
`
`Co. v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d 1280, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The inventor’s own
`
`
`
`path itself never leads to a conclusion of obviousness; that is hindsight.”). No prior
`
`art taught using a brush-belt to convey seeds in a planter and a POSA would have
`
`had no expectation of success in using a brush-belt in this manner. Ex.1115-
`
`Glancey-Dep., 219:17-20 (“the world changed in February 2009 because of [the]
`
`teachings of Deere”).
`
`Petitioners now attempt to expand their ground to include Thiemke and
`
`Gould. Reply 8-10. Neither teaches conveying seeds. Thiemke’s brush wheel is not
`
`a “brush-belt” or an “endless member,” Ex.1114-Glancey-Dep., 49:15-52:21, and
`
`it only momentarily contacts seeds as it accelerates them on a seed slide. Ex.1015-
`
`Thiemke, 4:7-11; Ex.2263-Prairie-Reply-Dep., 101:19-103:21. Gould teaches
`
`opposing brush-belts to move whole plants—not seeds—to the ground. Ex.1030-
`
`Gould, 1:9-12; Ex.2263-Prairie-Reply-Dep., 108:1-19.
`
`Petitioners’ argument that it was “common in agriculture to combine
`
`components from different systems depending on planting needs,” Reply 10, does
`
`not support Dr. Taylor’s conclusion that a POSA would “take a brush belt, a well-
`
`known planter component, and incorporate it into a different planting system
`
`without undue experimentation.” Ex.1135-Taylor-Reply-Decl., ¶¶29-31. Dr.
`
`Taylor’s ipse dixit is unsupported. He admittedly never studied the dynamics of
`
`moving brush-belts. Ex.2189-Taylor-Dep., 35:10-16; Ex.2265-Taylor-Reply-Dep.,
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,686,906
`
`
`23:10-24:4, 30:14-31:15. Dr. Taylor’s testimony is conclusory and unsupported by
`
`
`
`evidence. It should be rejected. TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Systems, Inc., 942 F.3d
`
`1352, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (reversing Board for relying on petitioner’s
`
`expert’s “conclusory statements and unspecific expert testimony”); K/S Himpp v.
`
`Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“core factual
`
`finding” underlying unpatentability requires “more than a conclusory statement”).
`
`The only record evidence relevant to the challenges a POSA would confront
`
`in attempting to use a brush-belt to engage, convey, and discharge seeds comes
`
`from Dr. Glancey. Ex.2206-Glancey-Decl., ¶¶160-174; Ex.2245. This evidence
`
`demonstrates a POSA would have no reasonable expectation of success
`
`implementing Petitioners’ hindsight-driven Hedderwick-Koning combination. Dr.
`
`Glancey handled, planted with, and operated brush-belts at conventional and high
`
`speeds, Ex.1113-Glancey-Dep., 142:21-144:1, 178:13-180:16; Ex.1114-Glancey-
`
`Dep., 138:19-152:3; Ex.1133-Glancey-Dep., 98:14-99:4, and he relies on
`
`testimony from Messrs. Schmidt, Veale, and Thiemke describing their first-hand
`
`experience, Ex.2031-Schmidt-Decl.; Ex.2032-Veale-Decl.; Ex.2025-Thiemke-
`
`Decl.; Ex.1115-Glancey-Dep., 120:12-21, 163:2-19; Ex.2206-Glancey-Decl., ¶189.
`
`Significant challenges engaging and conveying seeds in a moving brush.
`
`Dr. Glancey cites several videos demonstrating these challenges. Ex.2141-Brush-
`
`Seed-Surfing-Problem-Video; Ex.2142-Brush-Pass-Through-Problem-Video;
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,686,906
`
`
`Ex.2143-Brush-Seed-Bunching-Problem-Photo; Ex.2186-Brush-Belt-Corn-5mph-
`
`
`
`Video; Ex.2187-Brush-Belt-No-Meter-5mph-Video; Ex.2198-Brush-Jamming-
`
`Problem-Video. Ex.2206-Glancey-Decl., ¶¶160-171. Ex.2186 is particularly
`
`relevant: a moving brush-belt—an ExactEmerge brush-belt optimized for planting
`
`corn moving at the conventional 5-mph—resists entry of seed dropped from above,
`
`which is exactly the scenario posited in Petitioners’ substitution of Koning’s brush-
`
`belt into Hedderwick. Specifically, a seed “surfs” on top of the brush bristles and
`
`does not enter into the belt. Ex.2141 shows the same problem encountered during
`
`the development of the Thiemke brush-wheel.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,686,906
`
`
`
`
`
`
`It took inventive skill, not routine experimentation, to solve this problem. Ex.-
`
`2206-Glancey-Decl., ¶¶164-167.
`
`While Petitioners criticize the videos because Dr. Glancey did not recall
`
`certain details during his deposition, Reply 11-12, he confirmed the videos were
`
`made either by him or one of the ’906 Patent’s inventors. Ex.1114-Glancey-Dep.,
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,686,906
`
`
`134:7-135:16, 139:14-140:7; Ex.2264-Glancey-Dep., 113:9-114:12, 115:6-15.6
`
`
`
`Taylor, in contrast, conveniently insisted he “really didn’t need to study the
`
`dynamics of the brush belt to arrive at [his reply] declaration.” Ex.2265-Taylor-
`
`Reply-Dep., 23:10-24:4, 30:14-31:15; Ex.2189-Taylor-Dep., 35:10-16.7
`
`Petitioners’ failure to provide any contrary evidence should be dispositive.
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC, 925 F.3d 1373, 1380-81 (Fed.
`
`
`6 Petitioners crop a quote from Dr. Glancey’s deposition to argue he “disclaimed
`
`reliance on the videos.” Reply 12. In the next sentence (which Petitioners omit) Dr.
`
`Glancey explained his “point” was “to substantiate my claims, for example, that a
`
`brush belt exhibits very fluid-like characteristics, and the finger acting upon it was
`
`a -- I thought a good way to show that phenomenon.” Ex.1114-Glancey-Dep.,
`
`151:12-16. See Ex.2264-Glancey-Dep., 113:13-115:5.
`
`7 Taylor speculates that Koning’s brush need not have “stiff, closely-packed
`
`bristles.” Ex.1135, ¶32. This suggestion lacks foundation, and undermines his
`
`alleged motivation for using Koning’s brush in the first place—“finer control”
`
`over seed. Id., ¶14; Ex.2206-Glancey-Decl., ¶162 (“[I]f the brush hair density is
`
`too low, seeds will not be held within the belt, and could fall out, become
`
`dislodged, or move.”).
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,686,906
`
`
`Cir. 2019) (no motivation or expectation of success where expert “failed to
`
`
`
`adequately explain” how petitioner’s combination solved problem that was “more
`
`complicated than Petitioners suggest.”); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829
`
`F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Petitioners’ Interpretation of Figure 4 is Unsupported: Petitioners focus on
`
`two vague and internally-inconsistent statements in Hedderwick to conjure a
`
`configuration of Figure 4 that omits fins and a drop-off lip, and which ignores
`
`Hedderwick’s teaching of synchronization. Reply 13-20.8
`
`First, Petitioners cite Hedderwick’s statement that fins “need not be
`
`employed” in Figure 4. But Hedderwick never describes this configuration,
`
`Ex.2206-Glancey-Decl., ¶¶86-90, and Figure 4 shows fins 131, Ex.1003-
`
`Hedderwick, Fig 4, 4:13. The POSA would have needed to guess what Hedderwick
`
`meant by fins are “optional.” Ex.2206-Glancey-Decl., ¶¶86-90; Ex.1113-Glancey-
`
`Dep., 185:7-186:1. Dr. Taylor himself admitted that “[m]ight be a question for
`
`
`8 Petitioners’ speculation that Hedderwick “would not have [synchronization]
`
`issue[s] with a brush-belt,
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
