Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 71
`Entered: April 4, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PRAIRIE LAND MILLWRIGHT SERVICES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`SIOUX STEEL COMPANY,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`Before NEIL T. POWELL, JAMES A. TARTAL,and
`GEORGER. HOSKINS,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`POWELL,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C, § 318(a) and 37 CFR. § 42.73
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 71
`Entered: April 4, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PRAIRIE LAND MILLWRIGHT SERVICES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`SIOUX STEEL COMPANY,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`Before NEIL T. POWELL, JAMES A. TARTAL,and
`GEORGER. HOSKINS,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`POWELL,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C, § 318(a) and 37 CFR. § 42.73
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Prairie Land Millwright Services, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,967,937 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the 937 patent”). Paper 9 (“Pet.”). Patent
`Owner, Sioux Steel Company,filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 46
`
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). In view of those submissions, weinstituted an inter
`partes review of claims 1-28. Paper 50 (“Institution Decision”or “Dec. on
`
`Inst.”). Subsequently, Patent Ownerfiled a Patent Owner Response
`(Paper 61, “PO Resp.”), and Petitionerfiled a Reply (Paper 66, “Pet.
`
`Reply”).
`Wehavejurisdiction over this proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
`After considering the evidence and arguments of the parties, we determine
`that Petitioner has not proven by a preponderanceof the evidencethat
`claims 1-28 are unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). We issue this Final
`
`Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Theparties note the following related case: Sioux Steel Co. v. Prairie
`Land Millwright Sves., Inc., No. 1-16-cv-02212-JBG/SMF (N.D.Ill.).
`
`Pet. 7; Paper 45, 1.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`C. The Pending Grounds of Unpatentability
`Weinstitutedtrial based on the following grounds of unpatentability: .
`
`Claim(s
`1-4 and 6-11*
`Dixon, Berreau, Borowski, and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)|5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dixon, Berreau, Borowski, and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)|12-28
`
`Petitioner also relies on a Declaration from Bruce Meyer. Ex. 1039.
`
`Patent Ownerrelies on Declarations from James E. Maness. Exs. 2001,
`
`2012.
`
`'U.S. Patent No. 6,499,930 to Dixon, iss. Dec. 31, 2002 (Ex. 1007).
`2 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0254922to Berreauet al.,
`published Nov. 17, 2005 (Ex. 1013).
`3 Canadian Patent Application No. CA2312068 to Borowski, published
`Dec. 20, 2001 (Ex. 1019).
`4 Petitioner identifies a “First Ground”as being “Obviousness of Claims 1-
`28 under 35 USC § 103(a) in view of U.S. Patent 6,499,930 to Dixon; U.S.
`Published Patent Appl'n. 2005/0254922 to Berreauet al.; Canadian
`Published Patent Appl'n. 2,312,068 to Borowski; U.S. Patent 3,175,676 to
`Vander Schaaf; and Sudenga Industries, Inc. Press Release.” Pet. 14
`(emphasis omitted). Petitioner does not, however, cite each of the listed
`references with respect to each of the challenged claims. For example,
`Petitioner asserts that Dixon, Berreau, and Borowski render claims 1—4 and
`6-11 obvious. Jd. Based on the combinations of references that Petitioner
`cites as rendering different claims obvious, we identify the groundsas those
`listed in this table.
`5 U.S, Patent No. 3,175,676 to Vander Schaaf, iss. Mar. 30, 1965 (Ex. 1032).
`6 SudengaIndustries, Inc. “Series II Sweep Augers,” November1, 2004
`(Ex. 1035).
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`D. The ’937 Patent
`
`The °937 patent discloses a modular storage bin sweep system.
`Ex. 1001, 4:31—34. In particular, the °937 patent discloses a system using
`
`paddles to sweep particulate matter across a bin’s floor. Jd. at 4:35-37.
`According to the °937 patent, “(s]weep systems have beenutilized in storage
`bins for moving particulate matter across the floor of the bin to a desired
`location, such as a sump located at the center of the bin, where the
`particulate matter may betransported underthe floor and outof the bin.” Jd.
`at 1:11-15. The 937 patent explains that its system “is highly suitable for
`use in roundstoragebins,”but is not limited to such use. Jd. at 4:42—47.
`The ’937 patent shows a top view of one embodimentofits system in
`Figure 2, whichis reproduced below. Jd. at 3:33—34.
`
`
`
`82
`
`80
`
`|
`
`FIG. 2
`
`Figure 2 shows system 10,including sweep assembly 12, which comprises
`powerunit 26, drive unit 56, and linking units 70. Id. at 4:48-50; 5:32-33.
`The °937 patent discloses that sweep assembly 12 “may include two units,
`but often includes more than two units in the linear array.” Id. at 4:62-63.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`The ’937 patent elaborates that:
`
`The number of units in the array of the sweep assembly may
`typically be a function of the distance between the central area
`and the peripheral area of the bin interior so that the length of the
`sweep assembly generally approximates the distance between the
`areas (which in the case of a round bin is approximately the
`radius of the bin interior). The units may have different lengths
`that may be utilized in the linear array of units to achieve
`substantial correspondence between the length of the sweep
`assembly aud the radius of the bin.
`
`Id. at 4:63-5:5.
`
`The ’937 patent also discloses that sweep assembly 12 may include
`paddles 18 mounted on an endless loop 20 (not shownin Figure 2) extending
`between inboard 14 and outboard 15 ends of sweep assembly 12.
`
`Id. at 5:13-31. Endless loop 20 and paddles 18 are shownin Figure 8,
`
`reproduced below. Jd. at 3:56—S9, Fig.8.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`Figure 8 shows paddles 18 mounted to both lowerstretch 22 and upper
`
`stretch 23 of endless loop 20. Jd. at 5:25—28.
`Power unit 26 moves paddles 18 along sweep assembly 12.
`Id. at 5:37-38. A portion of powerunit 26 is shown in more detail in
`
`Figure 7, reproduced below. Jd. at 3:52—55.
`
`Figure 7 showsfirst base portion 28 of power unit 26. Jd. First base
`portion 28 includesfirst housing segment 32. Jd. at 5:52—-56. First base
`portion 28 also includes center support 44 extending from an end offirst
`housing segment 32. Jd. at 6:7-8. Center support 44 “is configured to
`engage the sump(ora structure associated with the sump)to hold the center
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`support 44 at the sump and cause the sweep assembly to rotate about the
`
`sump.” Id. at 6:9-11.
`First base portion 28 “carries a portion of the succession of
`interconnected paddles.” Jd. at 5:42-43. First base portion 28 includesdrive
`member30 (in this case, a toothed sprocket) “on which a portion of the
`
`endless loop member20 is engaged” (not shownin Figure 7). Jd. at 5:43—
`
`45. For moving paddles 18 along sweep assembly 12, powerunit 26
`includes motor 50 (not shownin Figure 7) operable to rotate rotatable
`
`member30. Jd. at 6:43-48.
`
`Drive unit 56 serves to move sweep assembly 12 across the
`
`underlying surface. Id. at 6:51-54. In some embodiments,drive unit 56
`includes wheels 66, which cngage the surface beneath sweep assembly 12.
`
`Id. at 7:21-24. Drive unit 56 is shown in perspective view in Figure 5,
`
`whichis reproduced below. Jd. at 3:41—43.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`Figure 5 showsdrive unit 56, comprising second base portion 58 and ground
`engaging portion 64, which includes wheels 66. Jd. at 6:60-62, 7:12-15,
`7:21-24. The ’937 patent discloses that drive unit 56 may be positionedat
`
`the outward end of sweep assembly 12, as shownin Figures 1 and 2.
`Id. at 6:54-55. The ’937 patent discloses that some embodiments mayalso
`have additional drive units “interspersed betweenlinking units 70 of the
`
`sweep assemblyat location[s] between the inboard and outboard ends.” Jd.
`
`at 6:54-59.
`
`Figure 17, which is reproduced below, schematically showsa series of
`componentsfor transmitting power from motor 50 to wheels 66. Id. at 4:23—
`
`25, Fig. 17.
`
`50
`
`GEARSET
`
`52
`
`ROTATABLE
`ORIVE
`MEMBER
`
`
`
`
`
`ENDLESS
`LOOP MEMBER
`WITH PADDLES
`
`ROTATABLE
`DRIVEN
`MEMBER
`
`DRIVE TRAIN
`
`WHEELS
`
`66
`
`FIG. 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`Figure 17 shows motor 50 connected to wheels 66 by gearset 52,rotatable
`
`drive member30, endless loop member20, rotatable driven member60, and
`
`drive train 68.
`/d. at Fig. 17.
`The ’937 patent also discloses that sweep assembly 12 may include a
`pivot unit. Jd. at 9:31-34. One view of an embodimentofpivot unit 90 is
`
`shown in Figure 11, reproduced below.
`
`Figure 11 showsstructureof pivot unit 90, including sections 92, 94 and
`pivotstructure 96. Jd. at 9:31-38. Section 92 includes pivot arms 98
`extending outward. Id. at 9:38-40. Section 94 includespivot tabs 100.
`Id. at 9:40-41. Pivot pins 102 fasten pivot arms 98 to pivot tabs 100.
`Id. at 9:41-43. Accordingly, sections 92, 94 may pivot abouta substantially
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`horizontal axis relative to one another. Jd. at 9:31-34. “Similar to the
`
`linking units, the opposite ends of the connected sections 92, 94 may have
`connecting flanges that permit connection of the pivot unit to other units of
`the sweep assembly.” Jd. at 9:49-52. This “allows a degree of flexibility or
`pivotability in the linear array of units in the sweep assembly 12,” which
`“may be useful for situations where the ability for some sections of the
`sweep assembly to movevertically in a somewhat independent manner from
`other sections is desirable.” Jd. at 9:23-28.
`
`Some embodiments mayintegrate a pivot unit with a drive unit to
`
`form combination unit 120, shown in Figures 12 and 13. Figure 12 is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`FIG. 12
`
`Figure 12 is a perspective view of combination unit 120. Id. at 4:5—-7, 9:53-
`55. Combination unit 120 includesfirst section 92, second section 94, and
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`pivot structure 96. Jd. at 9:57-60. “[C]ombination unit 120 may also
`include elements of the drive unit 56 previously described, such as surface
`
`engaging portion 58 including a wheel66,or a pair of wheels andadrive
`train 68.” Jd. at 9:60-63. A sectional view of combination unit 120 appears
`
`in Figure 13, which is reproduced below.
`
`FIG. 13
`
`Figure 13 showsfirst section 92 and second section 94 connected bypivot
`structure 96. See id. at Fig. 13. Figure 13 also shows that combination
`
`unit 120 includes rotatable driven member60 engagedto endless loop
`
`member20. Jd. at 9:65-67. Thus, “[t]he drive train and the wheels ofthe
`combination unit 120 may be drivenby the endless loop member20carrying
`
`the paddles.” Jd. at 9:63—65.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`E. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claim 1 is independent, and claims 2—28
`depend from claim 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the challenged claims and
`
`recites:
`
`1. A modular storage bin sweep system utilizing paddles to
`sweep particulate matter across a floor surface of a bin,
`the
`system comprising:
`two units connectable
`least
`a sweep assembly including at
`together in a substantially linear array along a longitudinal
`axis, each of the units having a unit longitudinal axis, the
`sweep assembly having an inboard end for locating toward a
`center of the bin and an outboard end for locating toward a
`peripheralareaofthe bin, each ofthe at least two units having
`a longitudinalaxis, the sweep assembly comprising:
`a plurality of interconnected paddles movable in a succession
`on a path along at least a portion of the sweep assembly
`between the inboard and outboard ends;
`
`at least one of the at least two units comprising a powerunit
`configured to movethe succession of paddles along the path of
`the sweep assembly;
`at least one of the at least two units comprising a drive unit
`configured to carry a portion of the succession of
`interconnected paddles and move the sweep assembly with
`respect to a surface of the bin below the sweep assembly,the
`drive unit being positioned toward the outboard end from the
`inboard end of the sweep assembly,the drive unit including a
`surface engaging portion configured to engage a surface below
`the sweep assembly and move the sweep assembly with respect
`to the surface, the surface engaging portion comprisingat least
`one surface engaging wheelresting on the surface of the bin;
`and
`
`at least one of the at least two units comprising a pivot unit
`configured to carry a portion of the succession of
`interconnected paddles, the pivot unit includingapair of
`connectedsections with each section being connected to an
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`adjacent said unit of the array, the pivot unit including a pivot
`structure positioned between and connecting the sections to
`permit pivotingof a first section with respect to a second
`section and thereby to permit a degree of pivotability of the unit
`longitudinal axesof the adjacent units with respect to each other
`in the array of units of the sweep assembly.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:46—11:17.
`
`II]. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, the Board interprets claim terms in an
`unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable constructionin light
`of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b); see In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142-46
`
`(2016).
`Relevant to our analysis below, claim 1 recites “a pivot unit
`configured to carry a portion of the succession of interconnected paddles.”
`Ex. 1001, 11:7-9. Petitioner does not address the construction of this claim
`languagein the Petition, arguing instead that most claim terms “are facially
`clear and shouldbe giventheir plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 11; see
`also id. at 10-12 (identifying other claim terms that “benefit from reference
`to the specification to inform or define their meaning”). Patent Owner
`argues in its Responsethat a person ofordinary skill in the art, in the context
`of the °937 patent, would have understood the ordinary meaningof the term
`“pivot unit configured to carry a portion of the succession of paddles” to
`require a physical configuration that includes a pivoting function together
`with a structural configuration that carries a succession of paddles between
`sections of the pivot unit. PO Resp. 13-14 (citing Ex. 2012 4] 57-63). In
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`particular, Patent Owner doesnot argue that the claim term “carry” is used
`
`in any mannerotherthanits plain and ordinary meaning. Seeid. at 15
`
`(focusing instead on whether a “pivot unit” requires “a housing segmentat
`
`least partially defining an interior”). While Petitioner disputes Patent
`Owner’s arguments with regardto the recited “pivot unit” and housing,
`
`Petitioner does not suggest that the claim term “carry” is used in any manner
`
`other than its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. Reply 3-4.
`In view of this, and consistent with the Specification, we understand
`that the claim language “configured to carry a portion of the succession of
`
`interconnected paddles” uses “carry” in accordance with its plain and
`ordinary meaning as supporting the paddles while they move. Thepivot
`
`unit/drive unit embodiment shownin Figure 13 presents an example
`
`consistent with this. This pivot unit/drive unit includes rotatable driven
`
`member60. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 13. Endless loop member20 engages
`
`rotatable driven member 60. Jd. at 9:65-67. Specifically, rotatable driven
`
`member60 is engaged to an underside of upper stretch 23 of endless loop
`member20,in a position to support a portion of the weight of endless loop
`member20 and the weight of a portion of paddles 18.
`/d. at Fig. 13, Fig. 8.
`Accordingly, the embodimentof pivot unit/drive unit shown in Figure 13 is
`configured to support the weight ofa portion of paddles 18 via rotatable
`driven member60 while paddles 18 move. Indeed, the Specification
`consistently uses “carry” accordingto its plain and ordinary meaning. For
`example, the Specification discloses “endless loop member20 carrying the
`paddles”(id. at 5:13-31) and that “powerunit 26 may comprise a first base
`portion 28 whichcarries a portion ofthe succession of interconnected
`paddles 18”(id. at 5:41-43). Endless loop member 20andfirst base portion
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`28 of powerunit 26 support paddles 18 while they move. Endless loop 20
`directly supports paddles 18, which mountto endless loop 20. See id. at
`5:19-22, Figs. 8, 13. Base portion 28 of powerunit 26 supports paddles 18
`via endless loop 20, which mountsto rotatable driven member30 of base
`portion 28. See id. at 541-51, Figs. 7, 8.
`Petitioner and Patent Owneraddress the constructions forcertain
`
`other claim terms. See Pet. 10-12; PO Resp. 13-15. We determine no claim
`term requires express construction in this case. Weinterpret the claims only
`to the extent necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc.
`v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[OJnly those
`terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent
`
`necessary to resolve the controversy.”’).
`
`B. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1-4 and 6-11 over Dixon, Berreau,
`and Borowski
`
`Petitioner asserts claims 1-4 and 6-11 would have been obvious over
`
`Dixon, Berreau, and Borowski. Pet. 14-23. Petitioner asserts that Dixon
`teaches a bin sweep system that uses paddles to moveparticulate matter in a
`bin. Jd. at 14. Petitioner contends that Dixon’s sweep assembly includes
`
`mostofthe limitations of independent claim 1. Jd. at 14—15.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`Figure 4 of Dixon is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 4 of Dixon showsa cross-sectional view of sweep conveyor 27. See
`
`Ex. 1007, 2:3-5, 2:38-48. Dixon’s sweep conveyor 27 includes elongated
`
`frame 33, which has a hood with top panel 39, side walls 41, 43 (not shown
`
`in Figure 4), and end walls 46. Jd. at 2:46-56. Sweep conveyor 27 includes
`
`sprockets 49, 51 rotatably attached to frame 33. Jd. at 2:64-3:15. Sweep
`
`conveyor 27 also includesroller chain 57 passing around sprockets 49, 51,
`
`as well as paddles 59 mounted onroller chain 57. Jd. at 3:16-22. Sweep
`
`conveyor 27 has power means63 for rotating one of sprockets 49, 51 to
`
`moveroller chain 57, and paddles 59 to sweep grain. Jd. at 3:35-39.
`
`Additionally, “sweep conveyor 27 preferably includes drive means 79 for
`causing the frame 33 to rotate about the well 25” (not shownin Figure 4).
`
`Id. at 3:58-59.
`
`Petitioner asserts that Dixon teaches a “powerunit” and a “drive unit,”
`
`as recited in independent claim |. Pet. 14-15. Petitioner asserts that
`Dixon’s “powerunit” is at inboard sweep end 35.
`/d. at 15. Petitioner
`
`asserts that Dixon’s “drive unit”is at outboard sweep end 37. Jd.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`Petitioner notes that Dixon does not teach certain limitations in
`
`independent claim 1. For example, Petitioner states that Dixon does not
`
`teach:
`
`inter alia, the sweep unit including at least two units connectable
`together in a substantially linear array along a longitudinal axis,
`each of the units having a unit longitudinal axis; at least one of
`the units comprising the aforementioned powerunit; at least one
`of the units comprising the aforementioned drive unit; and at
`least one of the units comprising a pivot unit including a pair of
`connected sections with each section being connected to an
`adjacent unit of the array,
`the pivot unit
`including a pivot
`structure positioned between and connecting the sections to
`permit pivoting ofa first section with respect to a secondsection,
`thereby permitting a degree of pivotability of the unit
`longitudinal axes of the adjacent units with respect to eachother.
`Pet. 15-16. Addressing these aspects of the claims, Petitioner asserts that a
`person ofordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to makecertain
`changes to Dixon’s disclosed apparatus, based on the teachings of Berreau
`
`and Borowski.
`
`/d. at 16—20.
`
`Petitioner relies on Berreau as teaching modular construction of a bin
`
`sweep. Jd. at 16-18. Petitioner asserts that Berreau teaches “an auger sweep
`— whichis an art-recognized equivalent to a paddle sweep .
`.
`. — including at
`
`least two units connectable together in a substantially linear array along a
`
`longitudinal axis,” and which includes other features consistent with claim
`
`1’s recitations regarding the “units.” Jd. at 16-17. Petitioner contendsthat,
`
`in view of Berreau, a person ofordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated “to construct the Dixon sweep from modularunits, including a
`
`powerunit, a drive unit, and intermediate linking units,to facilitate
`construction of a sweep having a desired length, as suggested by Berreau.”
`
`Id. at 17.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`Petitioner also states that “[s]uch a Dixon/Berreau sweep wouldstill
`
`lack the pivot unit recited in claim 1.” Jd. at 18. In addressing the claimed
`
`pivot unit, Petitioner cites Borowski. Jd. at 18-20. Figure 1 of Borowskiis
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
` PSTAA AAA DATAITl
`I iinerrPhterrng
`Cait?7tsed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fié.\
`
`16
`
`Figure | of Borowski showsbin sweep 10, including hydraulic motor 24,
`inner flighting section 26, universal joint 28, outer flighting section 30,
`
`backboard 32, and shield 38. Ex. 1019, 2:15—16, 2:24—25, 3:2—-12.
`
`Petitioner asserts that universal joint 28 couples innerflighting section 26 to
`
`outerflighting section 30, “allowing the sweep to ‘move up and downas
`necessary as the sweep progresses around the bin.”” Pet. 18 (quoting
`Ex. 1019, 2:4-6). Petitioner further asserts that shield 38 and backboard 32
`are “coupled to ‘allow[] free, universal movementofthe shield on the
`backboard soasto not restrain relative movements ofthe inner and outer
`
`[sweep] flighting sections at the universaljoint.’” Jd. (quoting Ex. 1019,
`4:1-4). In view ofthis, Petitioner asserts that “both the auger andits
`adjacent ‘casing’ (shield and backboard) are pivotally coupled.” Id.
`Petitioner contends that Borowski would have motivated a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art “to add one or more pivots along the length of Dixon
`as modified by Berreau(i.e., between the modular units of modified
`Dixon).” Id. Petitioner asserts that combining the teachingsof the
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`references in this manner would result in a sweep system having the “pivot
`
`unit” of claim 1, elaborating that
`
`at least one ofthe at least two units of the Dixon/Berreau sweep,
`e.g., an intermediate linking unit between the power anddrive
`units (as suggested by Berreau’s intermediate unit 10 betweenits
`powerand drive units 24 and 26, see EX. 1013, FIG. 3), would
`comprise a pivot unit configured to carry a portion of the
`succession of interconnected paddles, the pivot unit including a
`pair of connected sections with each section being connected to
`an adjacent said unit of the array (as where the pivot is added
`between the “subunits” of Berreau’s intermediate unit, see
`EX. 1013, FIG. 4), the pivot unit including a pivot structure
`positioned between and connecting the sections to permit
`pivoting ofa first section with respect to a second section and
`thereby to permit a degreeof pivotability of the unit longitudinal
`axes of the adjacent units with respect to each other in the array
`of units of the sweep assembly. Thus,all features of claim 1 are
`met by the Dixon/Berreau/Borowski sweep.
`
`Id. at 19-20.
`
`Patent Ownerarguesthat Petitioner has not demonstrated adequately
`how the cited prior art references allegedly would have rendered obviousall
`of the various details that the claimed “pivot unit” requires. PO Resp. 15—
`
`19. For example, Patent Ownercontends that Petitioner has not
`demonstrated that the asserted references, in combination, teach a pivotunit
`
`“configured to carry a portion ofthe succession of interconnected paddles.”
`
`Id. at 16-17.
`
`In response, Petitioner does not assert that any of the disclosed
`references teaches a “pivot unit configured to carry a portion of the
`succession of interconnected paddles.” Rather, Petitioner asserts that
`combiningcertain features of the different references would produce such a
`pivot unit. Specifically, Petitioner reiterates that it would have been obvious
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`in view of Berreau to modularize Dixon’s bin sweep (Pet. Reply 6-8), and
`
`that it would have been obvious in view of Borowski to add one or more
`
`pivots between modules (id. at 8-10). Petitioner asserts:
`
`the Dixon/Berreau/Borowski sweep
`With this modification,
`would havethe pivot unit of claim 1: at least one oftheat least
`two units of the Dixon/Berreau sweep, ¢.g., an intermediate
`linking unit between the powerand drive units (as suggested by
`Berreau’s intermediate unit 10 between its powerand drive units
`24 and 26, FIG.3), would comprise a pivot unit configured to
`carry a portion of the succession of interconnected paddles, the
`pivot unit
`including a pair of connected sections with each
`section being connected to an adjacent said unit of the array (as
`where
`the
`pivot
`is
`added
`between
`the
`“subunits”
`30a/46a/46b/46c and 30b/46d/46e/46f of Berreau’s intermediate
`unit, FIG.4), the pivot unit including a pivot structure positioned
`between and connecting the sections to permit pivoting ofa first
`section with respect to a second section and thereby to permit a
`degree of pivotability of the unit longitudinal axes ofthe adjacent
`units with respect to each otherin the array of units of the sweep
`assembly. Thus, all
`features of claim 1
`are met by the
`Dixon/Berreau/Borowski sweep.
`
`Id. at 10.
`
`Claim 1 recites “the pivot unit including a pair of connected sections
`
`with each section being connected to an adjacent said unit of the array.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 11:9-11. Forillustration, we provide below a drawingthat
`
`schematically shows such an arrangement.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`Pivot Unit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Adjacent
`Section
`Adjacent
`Section
`Unit of
`ofPivot
`ofPivot
`Unit of
`
`
`
`
`
`Array
`Unit
`Unit
`Array
`
`
`
`
`The drawing above showsa pivot unitthat includes two sections connected
`to one another, with each section also connected to an adjacentunit of the
`
`array.
`
`Petitioner contends that such a configuration would have been
`obvious. Specifically, Petitioner argues that it would have been obviousto
`“construct the Dixon sweep from modularunits, including a powerunit, a
`drive unit, and intermediate linking units” (Pet. 17), and to include a pivot
`
`between two sections in such a positionthat
`an intermediate linking unit between the power and drive units
`(as suggested by Berreau’s intermediate unit 10 between its
`powerand drive units 24 and 26, see EX. 1013, FIG.3), would
`comprise a pivot unit configured to carry a portion of the
`succession of interconnected paddles, the pivot unit including a
`pair of connectedsections with each section being connected to
`an adjacent said unit of the array (as where the pivot is added
`between the ‘subunits’ of Berreau’s intermediate unit, see Ex.
`1013, Fig. 4).
`Id. at 19-20. Thus, following Petitioner’s reasoning as we understandit,
`Petitioner indicates that it would have been obvious to modify Dixon’s
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`sweep into modular units, including a pivot unit in the intermediate portion.
`Forillustrative purposes, we provide below a schematic drawing of such a
`
`configuration.’
`
`
`
`Pivot Unit
`
`
`
`Power Unit
`
`
`
`
`
`Drive Unit
`Section
`
`
`of Pivot
`of Pivot
`Unit
`
`
`Unit
`
`
`Section
`
`The drawing above showsan array with a pivot unit in the intermediate
`portion of the array, the pivot unit including a pivot structure connected
`between twosections, which are connectedto the drive unit and powerunit,
`
`respectively.
`Assuming, arguendo,that it would have been obvious to modity
`Dixon’s bin sweep into modules arranged in this manner, Petitioner has not
`explained how or whyit would have been obvious for the pivot unit to “be
`configured to carry a portion of the succession of interconnected paddles,”
`as recited in claim 1. Dixon’s Figure 4 is reproduced below.
`
`7 If the configuration we show schematically is not whatPetitioner intended,
`then we determinethat Petitioner has not provided a sufficiently clear
`explanation of what the allegedly obvious configuration would have beento
`support sufficiently its obviousness contentions.
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`59
`
`
`
` \
`
`
`Peoncecncercen| jeer
`
`Ka
`_
`
`AYELMAra
`
`A]
`
`
`
`77)
`
`6I $9
`
`Figure 4 provides a cross-sectional view of Dixon’s sweep conveyor27.
`Ex. 1007, 2:10-12, 2:38-45. Sprockets 49, 51 at the ends of Dixon’s sweep
`conveyor27carry (i.e., support) roller chain 57 and paddles 59. Jd. at
`
`Fig. 4, 2:64-3:1, 3:16—22.
`Petitioner does not provide evidence or explanation demonstrating
`that the intermediate portion of Dixon’s sweep conveyor 27carries, to any
`extent, roller chain 57 or the succession of paddles 59. Accordingly,
`Petitioner has not shownthat makingthe intermediate portion of Dixon’s
`sweep a modularpivot unit (as Petitioner suggests would have been obvious)
`would produce a pivot unit “configured to carry a portion of the succession
`of interconnected paddles.” AndPetitioner provides no reasoning or
`evidence persuading usthat it would have been obvious, in addition to
`making Dixon’s intermediate portion a pivot unit, to further modify the
`intermediate portion to carry a portion of the succession ofinterconnected
`paddles. Thus, Petitioner’s assertion that it would have been obviousto
`make the intermediate portion of Dixon’s sweep a modularpivotunit fails to
`demonstrate obviousnessofall of the limitations of claim 1.
`
`Petitioner presents arguments that it would have been obviousalso to
`include pivots in other locations, but these argumentsalsofail to
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`demonstrate that the asserted references, in combination, teach all of the
`
`limitations of the claimed “pivot unit.” Specifically, Petitioner asserts thatit
`also would have been obviousto add pivots between the intermediate unit
`
`and oneor both ofthe end units, i.e., the power unit and drive unit. Pet. 18—
`
`19. Following Petitioner’s reasoning as we understandit, such a
`modification would apparently produce pivot units forming the endsof the
`linear array, as depicted in the drawing below.®
`
`Section
`
`
`Drive
`
`
`
`Power
`
`Unit/Section
`of Pivot
`
`
`
`
`of Pivot
`Unit/Section
`of Pivot Unit
`
`Unit
`
`
`
`Unit
`of Pivot Unit
`
`
`Section
`
`
`Pivot Unit
`
`
`Pivot Unit
`
`Pivot Unit
`
`8 Again, if the configuration we show schematically is not whatPetitioner
`intended, then Petitioner has not provided a sufficiently clear explanation of
`whatthe allegedly obvious configuration would have been to support
`sufficiently its obviousness contentions.
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`The drawing above showsan array with pivots included adjacent the power
`unit and the drive unit, as well as in the intermediate portion. Assuming,
`
`arguendo,that it would have been obvious to so modify Dixon’s sweep
`conveyor 27 to havepivot units at the ends, Petitioner does not demonstrate
`that either of the pivot units at the ends would meetthe limitation of claim 1
`of “the pivot unit includinga pair of connected sections with each section
`being connected to an adjacentsaid unit of the array,” as required by claim
`1. In particular, Petitioner does not present persuasive evidence that the
`proposed modification wouldresult in either the power unit or the drive unit
`being connected to an adjacent unit of the array. Instead, the power unit and
`the drive unit each merely form one section of a “pair of connected sections”
`in a pivot unit, without further “being connectedto an adjacent said unit of
`the array.” Ex. 1001, 11:7—-11. Thus, Petitioner’s contention that it would
`have been obvious to include pivots adjacent the powerunit and the drive
`unit also fails to demonstrate that all of the limitations of claim 1 would have
`
`been obvious.?
`
`For the foregoing reasons, with claim 1 using “carry” accordingtoits
`plain and ordinary meaning, Petitioner does not demonstrate obviousness of
`claim 1. Moreover, even if claim 1 used “carry” in a mannerdifferent from
`its plain and ordinary meaning, Petitionerhasstill failed to demonstrate
`obviousness of claim 1 by a preponderanceof the evidence. In response to
`Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner failed to explain how it would have
`
`9 As to the pivot unit in the intermediate portion of this example, Petitioner
`still has not provided any explanation of how it would have been configured
`to carry a portion ofthe paddles,that is, support the weight ofa portion of
`paddles.
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`been obviousfor the pivot unit to be configured to carry a portion of the
`paddles (PO Resp. 16-17), Petitioner does not waiver from its position that
`the term “carry”? has any meaningotherthanits plain and ordinary (see Pet.
`11-12). Nor and doesPetitioner offer persuasive evidence of how the
`allegedly obvious modifications would result in the claimed invention.
`Instead, Petitioner responds with nothing more than the conc
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
