UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`One World Technologies, Inc. D/B/A Techtronic Industries Power Equipment,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHERVON (HK) LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00885
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,648,805
`Issue Date: May 16, 2017
`Title: Locking Device, Telescopic Rod and
`Mower Comprising the Locking Device
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`One World Technologies, Inc. D/B/A Techtronic Industries Power Equipment,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHERVON (HK) LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00885
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,648,805
`Issue Date: May 16, 2017
`Title: Locking Device, Telescopic Rod and
`Mower Comprising the Locking Device
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ........................... 1
`A.
`Real Parties-In-Interest – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .................................. 1
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Related Matters – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ............................................. 1
`
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ......................... 1
`
`Service Information ............................................................................... 2
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................... 2
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR .......................................................................... 3
`A.
`Grounds for Standing – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ..................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested ............ 3
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’805 PATENT ............................................................. 3
`A.
`Brief Description ................................................................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Telescopic Rod ...................................................................................... 6
`
`Operation Lever ..................................................................................... 6
`
`Prosecution History of the ’805 Patent ................................................. 8
`
`The Critical Date of the Challenged Claims .......................................10
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .......................................................10
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3) ................11
`A.
`“repulsion generating member” (Claim 1) ..........................................11
`
`VI. BACKGROUND TECHNOLOGY KNOWN BY PERSONS OF
`ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...............................................................13
`
`i
`
`
`
`A.
`
`ELECTRIC MOWERS ALREADY HAD TELESCOPIC
`
`HANDLES ..........................................................................................13
`
`B.
`
`BY 2012, ANSI STANDARDS AND FEDERAL
`
`REGULATIONS REQUIRED SAFETY MECHANISMS TO
`
`KEEP USERS AT A SAFE DISTANCE FROM A LAWN
`
`MOWER’S MOTOR ...........................................................................17
`
`VII. GROUND 1: CLAIM 1 IS OBVIOUS UNDER AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103
`OVER LANGDON (U.S. 5,209,051) IN VIEW OF WU (U.S. 7,179,200). 17
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................39
`
`ii
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`TTI1001: U.S. Patent No. 9,648,805 (“the ’805 patent”)
`
`TTI1002: Prosecution History of the ’805 Patent
`
`TTI1003: Declaration of E. Smith Reed
`
`TTI1004 – TTI1006: Reserved.
`
`TTI1007: GB 2,386,813 (“Reichart”).
`
`TTI1008: 16 CFR Part 1205 – Safety Standard for Walk-Behind Power Lawn
`Mowers (January 1, 2012).
`
`TTI1009 – TTI1011: Reserved.
`
`TTI1012: U.S. Patent No. 5,209,051 (“Langdon”).
`
`TTI1013 – TTI1019: Reserved.
`
`TTI1020: CN 202 109 551 U certified English translation.
`
`TTI1021 – TTI1029: Reserved.
`
`TTI1030: ANSI/OPEI B71.1-2012 revised/issued April 23, 2012 (“ANSI B71.1”)
`
`TTI1031: JP 2003 130 017A original Japanese language.
`
`TTI1032: JP 2003 130 017A certified English translation (“Idota”).
`
`TTI1033: EP 08 223 346 A1 (“Pronzati”).
`
`TTI1034: U.S. Patent No. 3,029,887 (“Schantz”).
`
`TTI1035: U.S. Patent No. 7,179,200 (“Wu”).
`
`iii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1)
`A.
`Real Parties-In-Interest – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`One World Technologies, Inc. D/B/A Techtronic Industries Power
`
`Equipment (“Petitioner”) is the real parties-in-interest, and requests Inter Partes
`
`Review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§311–319 and 37 C.F.R. §42 of claim 1 (“the
`
`Challenged Claim”) of U.S. Patent 9,648,805 (“the ’805 patent” or “Challenged
`
`Patent”) assigned to Chervon (HK) Limited (“Patent Owner”).
`
`Related Matters – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`B.
`The ’805 patent is the subject of the following lawsuit that may affect or be
`
`affected by a decision in this proceeding: Chervon (HK) Limited and Chervon
`
`North America, Inc., v. One World Technologies, Inc., and Techtronic Industries
`
`Co. Ltd., case no. 1:19-cv-01293-LPS, filed July 11, 2019, in the U.S. District
`
`Court for the District of Delaware. The same lawsuit also involves eight unrelated
`
`patents, U.S. Patent 9,060,463; U.S. Patent 10,070,588; U.S. Patent 9,596,806;
`
`U.S. Patent 9,826,686; U.S. Patent 9,986,686; U.S. Patent 10,477,772; U.S. Patent
`
`10,485,176; and U.S. Patent 10,524,420. Petitioners are filing IPRs or Post-Grant
`
`Review petitions against all nine (9) of these patents.
`
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`C.
`Petitioners provide the following designation of counsel.
`
`Lead Counsel
`Edward H. Sikorski
`
`Backup counsel
`James M. Heintz
`
`1
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`(USPTO Reg. No. 39,478)
`Ed.Sikorski@us.dlapiper.com
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`401 B Street, Suite 1700
`San Diego, California 92101-4297
`Tel.: (619) 699-2645
`Fax: (619) 764-6645
`
`Backup counsel
`(USPTO Reg. No. 41,828)
`James.Heintz@us.dlapiper.com
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`One Fountain Square, Suite 300
`Reston, Virginia 20190-5602
`Tel.: (703) 773-4148
`Fax: (703) 773-5008
`
`Tiffany Miller
`(USPTO Reg. No. 52,032)
`Tiffany.Miller@us.dlapiper.com
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`401 B Street, Suite 1700
`San Diego, California 92101-4297
`Tel.: (619) 699-3445
`Fax: (619) 764-6445
`
`Service Information
`D.
`Papers should be served to the addresses of all counsel listed above.
`
`Petitioners consent to electronic service by email above.
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`The Patent and Trademark Office is authorized to charge Deposit Account
`
`No. 07-1896 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition and any
`
`additional fees, referencing Attorney Docket 388291-0000XX. This Petition
`
`requests review of 1 claim which should incur $30,500.
`
`2
`
`
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR
`A.
`Grounds for Standing – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioners certify that the ’805 patent is available for IPR and Petitioners are
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR.
`
`Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested
`B.
`Petitioners request IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds listed
`
`below. A declaration from E. Smith Reed accompanies this Petition.
`
`Ground
`1
`
`2
`
`Claim
`1
`
`1
`
`References
`Basis
`§103 Langdon in view of Wu or Pronzati
`
`§103 Langdon in view of Idota in further
`view of Wu
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’805 PATENT
`A.
`Brief Description
`The ’805 patent claims priority to a foreign filing date later than May 16,
`
`2013, and is therefore subject to the first-to-invent (AIA) provisions of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102-103. It claims priority to Chinese patent application CN2013-10502603
`
`filed October 23, 2013.
`
`The ’805 patent describes a locking device for use for instance in locking
`
`telescoping handles on a walk-behind lawn mower. The device includes a clamp
`
`to apply pressure upon the inner and outer tubes of the telescoping handle, a
`
`frictional section on the clamp to hold the clamp in place when closed, and a
`
`3
`
`
`
`locking reinforcement member (such as an elongated post for insertion into aligned
`
`through-holes) to hold the inner and outer tubes of the telescoping handle at a
`
`designated position in relationship to each other when the clamp is closed.
`
`Figures 1 and 3 illustrate the disclosed locking device including a base 10, a
`
`pivoting shaft 11 (visible in Fig. 3), and an operating lever 12. The base 10 can be
`
`composed of two parts, as shown in the exploded view in Figure 3. One end of the
`
`operating lever 12 is hinged to the base 10 via pivoting shaft 11. A repulsion
`
`generating member 13 is arranged between the base 10 and the operating lever 12.
`
`The hinge created by pivoting shaft 11 allows the device to have a locking
`
`position, whereby the operating lever 12 is brought flush to base 10 (see Figure 4),
`
`and a releasing position whereby the operating lever is rotated away from base 10
`
`(see Figure 5).
`
`4
`
`
`
`When the operating lever 12 is in a releasing position, the repulsion
`
`generating member is in either a natural condition or may have a relatively small
`
`pretension force applied. TTI1001, 3:5-13. When the operating lever 12 is in a
`
`locking position, the repulsion generating member is in a compressed condition.
`
`Id. The repulsion generating member serves the purpose of giving an indication to
`
`the user that the operating level has not reached the locking position due to
`
`abnormal operation, the repulsion generating member forcing the operating lever to
`
`return to the releasing position. Id. at 2:23-28.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Telescopic Rod
`B.
`The disclosed locking device 100 forms a portion of a disclosed telescopic
`
`rod 20, the telescopic rod also including an inner tube 21 and an outer tube 22.
`
`The inner tube 21 and outer tube 22 are slidably arranged such that the inner tube
`
`21 can be slid into outer tube 22 to collapse the telescopic rod, or be drawn from
`
`the outer tube 22 to extend it. TTI1001, 2:3-7. The outer tube 22 is provided with
`
`a through hole 22a (Fig. 5) that allows a locking member 12a (Fig. 3) on the
`
`operating lever 12 to pass through in order to compress the inner tube 21 when
`
`rotated into a locking position. Id., 3:22-26; Figs. 3, 5. The outer tube 22 is further
`
`provided with a compression member 22b residing in through hole 22a, which is
`
`used to fix the inner tube 21 more firmly. Id., 3:28-30; Figs. 4, 5. Both the outer
`
`tube 22 and inner tube 21 are provided with hole 22c and 21a, respectively,
`
`through which a locking reinforcement member 12b residing on the operating lever
`
`12 may pass simultaneously when the two holes 22c and 21a are in alignment. Id.,
`
`3:31-35. The locking device 100 thus locks the relative position between the inner
`
`tube 21 and outer tube 22 by compressing inner tube 21 with operating lever 12
`
`when holes 22c and 21a are in alignment. TTI1001, 3:22-35.
`
`Operation Lever
`C.
`The disclosed locking device exhibits an operation lever 12 hingedly
`
`attached to a base 10 by pivoting shaft 11 whereby the locking device is in a
`
`6
`
`
`
`locking position when the operation lever 12 is rotated flush with the base 10
`
`(Figure 4), and a releasing position when the operation lever is rotated away from
`
`the base 10 (Figure 5.)
`
`The operation lever 12 includes the locking member 12a disposed at the end
`
`proximal to the pivoting shaft 11. Id., 2:67-3:4. The locking member 12a is a cam
`
`configured to press through the through hole 22a on outer tube 22 to compress the
`
`inner tube 21 via compression member 22b as the operation lever 12 is rotated to
`
`the locking position. (See Figs. 4, 5.) At the opposite end, the operation lever 12
`
`includes a friction portion 12c. Id., 3:37-41. When the operation lever 12 is
`
`moved to the locking position, the friction portion 12c is tightly engaged with the
`
`outer wall 10a of the base 10, holding it in locking position. Id. Between the
`
`7
`
`
`
`locking member 12a and the friction portion 12c, the operation lever 12 includes a
`
`locking reinforcement member 12b, shown as a post in Figure 4. Id., 3:33-35.
`
`When moving operation lever 12 into the locking position, locking reinforcement
`
`member 12b can be engaged with hole 22c in the outer tube 22 and hole 21a in the
`
`inner tube 21 simultaneously if such holes are aligned. Id., 3:60-4:2. Now in the
`
`locking position, the friction portion 12c is engaged with outer wall 10a of the base
`
`10 such that the friction force overcomes the force of the repulsion generating
`
`member acting to return the operation lever 12 to the releasing position. Id., 3:52-
`
`59.
`
`However, if holes 21a and 22c are not in alignment when the user attempts
`
`to rotate the operation lever 12 to the locking position, a so-called “abnormal
`
`operation of the user,” the locking reinforcement member cannot engage the holes,
`
`and operation lever 12 will not be permitted into the locking position. Id. In such
`
`condition, the repulsion generating member 13 disposed between operation lever
`
`12 and base 10 applies a force returning operation lever 12 to the releasing
`
`position. Id., 4:2-13.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’805 Patent
`D.
`The application for the ’805 patent was filed October 17, 2014, as an
`
`original U.S. application serial no. 14/517,233, claiming priority to Chinese
`
`application 2013-10502603, itself filed October 23, 2013. It was filed with claims
`
`8
`
`
`
`1-20 that included six claims drawn to the locking device alone, 8 claims drawn to
`
`a telescopic rod comprising an inner tube, an outer tube, and the locking device,
`
`and 6 claims drawn to a mower having a pushing handle comprising the telescopic
`
`rod.
`
`In its first Office Action, the USPTO declared each of the claims subject to a
`
`restriction/election requirement, along the locking device, telescopic rod, mower
`
`trichotomy. TTI1002, 93. The Applicant selected the mower claims, id. at 97,
`
`which the Examiner subsequently rejected over the lawnmower disclosed in
`
`Barlow in view analogous art outside of lawn and garden equipment: Melic (a lock
`
`for a safety fence support post), Solomon (a lock for a vertically adjustable table),
`
`and Sicz (an adjustable bicycle seat post assembly). Id., 115-18.
`
`The Applicant responded by amending the lone remaining independent
`
`claim adding limitations describing the inner and outer tubes, clarifying that the
`
`locking reinforcement member extends through the holes in both the inner and
`
`outer tubes when the operating lever is in the locking position. Id., 142-43, 147.
`
`The Examiner again rejected the claims as obvious over Barlow in combination
`
`with Melic, Sicz, and Solomon, and in further combination of Webber, a seat
`
`adjustment apparatus for an exercise machine. Id., 157-61.
`
`The Applicant requested continued examination, and amended the lone
`
`remaining independent claim to its final state, describing the friction portion of the
`
`9
`
`
`
`operating lever, and further clarifying that “the frictional portion of the operating
`
`lever engages the outside surface of the base to provide a fictional [sic] retention
`
`force to counteract the force of the repulsion generating member on the operating
`
`lever.” Id. 189-90, 193.
`
`After subsequent exchanges with the USPTO that are immaterial to this
`
`Petition, the ’805 patent was granted on May 16, 2017.
`
`The Critical Date of the Challenged Claims
`E.
`The ’805 patent claims priority to a Chinese patent application filed October
`
`23, 2013. TTI1001, 1. Petitioners do not believe it is important to this Petition to
`
`determine the actual priority date to which each Challenged Claim is entitled
`
`because the prior art relied upon herein was published prior to the oldest priority
`
`date.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`F.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of October 23, 2013,
`
`which is the earliest alleged priority date of the Challenged Patent, would have had
`
`at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or
`
`similar technical field, with at least three years of relevant product design
`
`experience. An increase in experience could compensate for less education.
`
`TTI1003 (Reed Decl.), ¶43.
`
`10
`
`
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)
`For the purposes of this IPR, Petitioners submit that the terms of the
`
`Challenged Patent should be given their plain and ordinary meaning as understood
`
`by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`(“POSITA”) in light of the patent’s specification. This is because the elements of
`
`the prior art read squarely on the Challenged Claims’ limitations. Wellman, Inc. v.
`
`Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need
`
`only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). Petitioners
`
`expressly reserve the right to take different claim construction positions in other
`
`forums or situations where claim construction standards are different, or to the
`
`extent claim construction controversies exist at that time. Moreover, Petitioners
`
`believe certain claims of the challenged patent are deficient under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`“repulsion generating member” (Claim 1)
`A.
`The Challenged Patent’s specification describes several forces generated
`
`within the locking device. When describing the operation of the operation lever,
`
`the Challenged Patent’s specification states that “[t]he beneficial effect of the
`
`described devices lies in that owing to the repulsion generating member being
`
`arranged between the base and the operating lever, the repulsion force is applied to
`
`the operating lever during the movement from the releasing position to the locking
`
`position, therefore when the operating lever does not completely reach the locking
`
`11
`
`
`
`position due to abnormal operation, the operating lever will return to the releasing
`
`position because of the repulsion fore, and thereby provide an indication to the
`
`user.” TTI1001, 2:19-28; see also id., 3:5-13; 4:14-55;5:13-23. This is in contrast
`
`to the force of the friction portion that must overcome it for the operation lever to
`
`maintain in the locking position. See id., 3:52-59.
`
`The repulsion of the operation lever, biasing it towards the releasing position
`
`is further elucidated by the specification describing preferred embodiments of the
`
`repulsion generating member. One disclosed embodiment is a torsion spring that is
`
`in a compressed condition when the operating lever is in a locking position. Id.,
`
`3:8-11. A second embodiment discloses magnets placed opposite each other on the
`
`body and operation lever, oriented such that the north poles face each other,
`
`causing a repulsion when the operating lever is in the locking position. Id., 4:35-
`
`50. “When the operating lever 12 is positioned between the releasing position and
`
`the locking position, the operating lever 12 will return to the releasing position
`
`under the action of the repulsion force between the two magnets…” Id., 4:35-55.
`
`The Challenged Claim includes a repulsion generating member disposed in
`
`the locking device and “generating a repulsion force for application to the
`
`operating lever during the movement of the operating lever from the releasing
`
`position to the locking position.” A POSITA having read the specification would
`
`have understood that the claimed repulsion generating member repulses the
`
`12
`
`
`
`operating lever as the user attempts to move it into the locking position, whereby if
`
`movement into the locking position is not completed, the repulsing force generated
`
`by the repulsion generating member, would bias the operation lever back towards
`
`the releasing position, indicating to her that the locking member is not locked.
`
`TTI1003 (Reed), ¶47.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioners submit that the appropriate construction of the term
`
`“repulsion generating member” in the Challenged Patent is: a member that
`
`generates a force repulsing the operating lever away from the locking position and
`
`towards the releasing position. TTI1003 (Reed), ¶48.
`
`VI. BACKGROUND TECHNOLOGY KNOWN BY PERSONS OF
`ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A POSITA would have known that the problems – and solutions – asserted
`
`in the Challenged Patent had existed long before its earliest priority date.
`
`A.
`
`ELECTRIC MOWERS ALREADY HAD TELESCOPIC
`HANDLES
`Electric lawnmowers were known since the 1920’s, if not earlier, and
`
`battery-powered lawnmowers date at least to the 1950’s. Examples include
`
`Langdon, U.S. 5,209,051 and Reichart, GB2,386,813. (TTI1012 and TTI1007.)
`
`A POSITA would have turned to Langdon (TTI1012, U.S. 5,209,051) which
`
`included two telescoping members 62, 82, with locking means 69 to reduce the
`
`13
`
`
`
`mower’s storage footprint. Id., 4:1-20. Langdon’s telescoping tubes 62, 82 were
`
`lengthwise adjusted by a “spring biased pin [69] to lock the handles in [an]
`
`operative push position.” Id., 4:6-8; Figure 5.
`
`Yet another mower taught by Reichart (TTI1007, GB 2,386,813) put many
`
`of these ideas together with a telescoping handle 5 that preferably locked at an in-
`
`use angle but could rotate to a vertical non-use position or all the way over the
`
`main body for storage. Id., 4:8-20; Figures 1-2. As with previous examples,
`
`above, Reichart contemplates a cut-grass collector at the rear of the mower. Id.,
`
`2:1-10.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Schantz (TTI1034, U.S. 3,029,889) is an even older electric lawnmower
`
`(3:19-23) whose handle 30 included a telescoping tube 80 nested inside a handle
`
`extension 82. Id., 3:65-72; Figures 1-3, 5-9. The tubes were locked in place
`
`lengthwise by a spring-biased detent 92 that mated with one of several aligned
`
`holes 94, 96 and itself was held in place by a slidable, locking ring 98. Id., 3:73-
`
`4:19; 6:18-25.
`
`15
`
`
`
`By 2011, the Patent Owner itself had publicly disclosed a push-type lawn
`
`mower whose handle retracted thanks to plural telescoping handle members.
`
`TTI1020 (CN202019551U), Figs. 1-4 (note members 21, 22).
`
`16
`
`
`
`B.
`
`BY 2012, ANSI STANDARDS AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS
`REQUIRED SAFETY MECHANISMS TO KEEP USERS AT A
`SAFE DISTANCE FROM A LAWN MOWER’S MOTOR
`A POSITA would know that well before 2012, industry guidelines and
`
`governmental regulations imposed many restrictions intended to make
`
`lawnmowers more safe. Among them were U.S. federal regulations codified at 16
`
`CFR 1205 (effective 1982; exhibit TTI1008 is the January 1, 2012 edition) which
`
`applied to electrically powered mowers as well as those powered by a gasoline
`
`engine (id., 1205.3(7), (9)); and ANSI B71.1 (TTI1030) which provided industry
`
`guidance. They “prescribe[d] safety requirements for certain walk-behind
`
`[consumer-grade] power lawn mowers … intended to reduce the risk of injury to
`
`consumers….” TTI1008, 1205.1(a). Accordingly, a POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to design lawnmowers according to those regulations, and to make
`
`obvious modifications to turn non-complying mowers in the prior art into
`
`compliant designs. See TTI1003, ¶55.
`
`VII. GROUND 1: CLAIM 1 IS OBVIOUS UNDER AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103
`OVER LANGDON (U.S. 5,209,051) IN VIEW OF WU (U.S. 7,179,200)
`AND SCHANTZ (U.S. 3,029,887).
`Langdon (TTI1012) was published May 11, 1993, before the earliest foreign
`
`priority date of October 10, 2013, before the earliest foreign priority date of
`
`October 23, 2013, claimed by the ’805 patent. It qualifies as prior art under AIA
`
`17
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as a “patented [or] printed publication … before the effective
`
`filing date of the claimed invention[.]”
`
`Wu (TTI1035) was filed August 3, 2005, before the earliest alleged effective
`
`priority date claimed by the ’805 patent, and qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`102(a)(2).
`
`Neither Langdon nor Wu was cited in the ’805 patent or its prosecution
`
`history.
`
`[1P]1 1. A mower, comprising:
`If the preamble is deemed a limiting element of the claim, then Langdon
`
`discloses a mower. The “Title of Invention” is “Lawn Mowers including Push
`
`Handles,” and its Abstract indicates that the disclosure is directed to a “rotary lawn
`
`mower....” TTI1012, at 1. Figure 5 illustrate a walk-behind lawnmower with a
`
`telescoping handle 21, shown below collapsed and folded for storage:
`
`1 Petitioners add these reference letters to help track the claim language.
`
`18
`
`
`
`TTI1003 (Reed decl.), ¶59.
`
`[1a] a main body;
`Langdon’s mower has a main body “deck 10 having a substantially flat
`
`upper portion and downwardly extending edge portions.” TTI1012, 2:3-5.
`
`19
`
`
`
`[1b] four wheels supporting the main body; and;
`Langdon’s mower utilizes four wheels supporting the main body. “Fig. 1 is
`
`a pictorial view of one embodiment of the invention.” TTI1012, 2:2-3.
`
`20
`
`
`
`“Four wheels with three of the wheels typically illustrated at reference
`
`numerals 14, 16, and 18 are affixed to opposite edges of the mower deck. The
`
`fourth wheel is not visible in this view.” TTI1012, 2:10-13.
`
`[1c] a handle connected to the main body, the handle comprising a telescopic
`rod, wherein the telescopic rod comprises: an inner tube; an outer tube;
`and
`Langdon discloses a handle connected to the main body, handle[s] 20. “In
`
`operation, the operator pushes on a handle 20 to propel the mower along the
`
`ground to mow vegetation.” Id., 2:13-15.
`
`Further, Langdon’s mower includes handles 20 connected to the main body,
`
`deck 10, via brackets 66. According to the specification, “push handles 20
`
`comprise a lower tubular portion 62 pivotally attached by pivot means 64 to
`
`brackets 66 mounted on the deck 10.” TTI1012, 4:2-4. Each of Langdon’s
`
`21
`
`
`
`handle[s] 20 further comprise telescopic rods, inner tube (“upper push handle
`
`portion 82”), which slides into outer tube (“lower tubular portion 62”).
`
`“The upper hand gripping portion 21 of the handles 20 comprise tubular
`
`members 82, one shown, which are telescoped upwardly and inwardly into tubular
`
`member 62. By this construction, the upper push handle portion 82 is pushed into
`
`lower member 62 thereby shortening the overall length of the push handles
`
`attached to the deck 10. When collapsed as shown at 80, the push handle is
`
`approximately the length of the deck.” TTI1012, 4:12-20. A POSITA would
`
`understand the combination of upper push handle portion 82 and lower member 62
`
`(also called “lower tubular portion 62”) to constitute a telescopic rod further
`
`constituting a handle for the mower’s main body. TTI1003 (Reed) ¶66.
`
`[1d] a locking device, wherein the inner tube is slidably connected to the outer
`tube, the locking device locking the relative position between the inner
`tube and the outer tube, wherein the locking device comprises: a pivoting
`shaft; an operating lever; a base; and a repulsion generating member, the
`base being sleeved on the outer tube and the pivoting shaft being arranged
`on the base, a first end of the operating lever being provided with a locking
`member for rotating around the pivoting shaft relative to the base, the
`repulsion generating member being arranged between the base and the
`operating lever and generating a repulsion force for application to the
`operating lever during the movement of the operating lever from the
`releasing position to the locking position,
`Langdon discloses a locking device, locking means 69, wherein the inner
`
`tube, upper push handle portion 82, is slidably connected to the outer tube, lower
`
`tubular portion 62, and the locking device means 69 locks the relative position
`
`22
`
`
`
`between the inner tube and the outer tube. Id., 4:1-20. Langdon’s telescoping
`
`tubes 62, 82 are held in place by a “[s]uitable locking means 69 such as a spring
`
`biased pin to lock the handles in [an] operative push position.” Id., 4:6-8; Figure 5.
`
`A POSITA would have recognized that a significant drawback to Landon’s
`
`lockable, telescoping handle is its inability to adjust to different lengths so that
`
`persons of different heights could comfortably and ergonomically work with the
`
`mower. Accordingly, a POSITA would have been motivated to make the handle’s
`
`length adjustable. TTI1003 (Reed decl.), ¶68.
`
`In addition, well before the oldest priority date claimed by the Challenged
`
`Patent, safety requirements were increasingly imposed on the lawnmower industry.
`
`Among them were U.S. federal regulations codified at 16 CFR 1205 (effective
`
`1982; exhibit TTI1008 is the January 1, 2012 edition) which applied to electrically
`
`powered mowers as well as those powered by a gasoline engine (id., 1205.3(7),
`
`23
`
`
`
`(9)) and “prescribe[] safety requirements for certain walk-behind [consumer-grade]
`
`power lawn mowers … intended to reduce the risk of injury to consumers….”
`
`TTI1008 (1205.1(a)). Those regulations required the motor’s normal starting
`
`controls to be “located within the operating control zone” which was defined
`
`essentially as a cylinder within 15 inches of the rearmost part of the mower handle.
`
`TTI1008 (1205.3(a)(11) (see definitional illustration below); 1205.5(c)).
`
`Also among safety requirements were those that were included in the
`
`American National Standards Institute, Inc. industry standard ANSI/OPEI B71.1-
`
`2003 (updated version ANSI/OPEI B71.1-2012 revised/issued April 23, 2012)
`
`“Safety Specifications for Consumer turf Care Equipment - Walk-Behind Mowers
`
`and Ride-On Machines with Mowers.” TTI1030. This industry standard, in
`
`24
`
`
`
`section 10.7.2, required “A positive up stop shall be provided that does not allow
`
`the rearward part of the handle to come closer than 700 mm (30 in) horizontally
`
`behind the closest path of the mower blades during normal operation.” TTI1030 at
`
`16.
`
`A POSITA would have recognized that one of the purposes of defining the
`
`“operating control zone” to be near the user was to keep control components away
`
`from the blade and lawnmower’s main body, and that the positive up stop required
`
`the control on the rearward part of the handle to be kept away from the mower
`
`blades. A POSITA would have further recognized that Langdon’s collapsible
`
`handle could bring its control components too close to the lawnmower main body
`
`to be considered safe for activation. First, the small size of Langdon’s spring
`
`biased pin 69 gives little visible indication to the user whether it is indeed locked
`
`into a through-hole. The pin 69 itself is notably small, and its engagement into the
`
`inner tube's intended locking through-hole might be so unclear or subtle that a user
`
`would be hard-pressed to discern that the tubes are successfully locked in place
`
`and/or whether the pin 69 has been jostled to an unlocked state during use.
`
`Second, when the handle is extended to its use position, the pin 69 would be
`
`positioned approximately halfway down the handle, far enough away from the
`
`operator that the locked or unlocked state of the mechanism may not be noticed.
`
`Third and perhaps most importantly, the pin 69 would be located at the less visible
`
`25
`
`
`
`underside of the handle when the handle is rotated to its use position, making it
`
`less likely that a user would notice if it is unlocked or becoming unlocked.
`
`Accordingly, a POSITA would have been motivated to adopt improved safety
`
`measures into Langdon’s lawnmower to reduce the chance of injury to the user,
`
`and specifically to prevent the user from mistaking that the telescoping handle is
`
`not locked and unsuitable for safe operation. In other words, Langdon’s handle
`
`can collapse or be on the verge of collapsing if locking means 69 is not properly
`
`locked in operational position, and the user might not notice the handle’s
`
`dangerous condition. A POSITA would have understood Wu to offer obvious
`
`safety solutions for Langdon’s mower. TTI1003 (Reed decl.), ¶71.
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to find safe alternatives to use as the
`
`locking means 69 in the Langdon telescoping mower handle. Such a POSITA
`
`would not have limited herself to telescoping handles in lawn equipment, but
`
`would broaden her search to include the myriad examples of telescoping handles
`
`throughout the mechanical arts. Telescoping handles were ubiquitous in the
`
`mechanical arts by 2012, and in some applications, preventing a telescoping handle
`
`from collapsing and/or indicating when the handle was safely locked in an
`
`extended position was of paramount importance to prevent accidents. Particularly,
`
`a POSITA would be motivated to look to examples of locking telescoping handles
`
`26
`
`
`
`where a person is pushing or walking behind a heavy load, and thus collapsing
`
`could cause injury and must be avoided. TTI1003 (Reed decl.), ¶72.
`
`Furthermore, the art itself suggests using a clamping device to hold two
`
`telescoping tubes at the proper length in a lawnmower. For instance, Reichart
`
`teaches that “[i]t is particularly advantageous to lock the telescoped tube parts by
`
`clamping devices in their length and which are operable
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
