Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 21
`Date: November 6, 2020
`
`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.
`
`IPR2020-00885
`Patent 9,648,805 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BARRY L. GROSSMAN, JAMES J. MAYBERRY, and
`ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge GROSSMAN
`
`Opinion Concurring filed by Administrative Patent Judge GROSSMAN
`
`GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314, 37 C.F.R. § 42.4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Patent 9,648,805 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`One World Technologies, Inc., doing business as Techtronic
`Industries Power Equipment (“Petitioner”), filed a Petition (“Pet.”)
`requesting inter partes review of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,648,805 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’805 patent”). Paper 2. Chervon (HK) Ltd. (“Patent
`Owner”), filed a Preliminary Response (“Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition.
`Paper 11. After receiving our authorization to do so (see Paper 12),
`Petitioner filed a Motion to Update Mandatory Notices to Add Real Parties-
`in-Interest (Paper 13, “RPI Motion”). Patent Owner filed an Opposition to
`that Motion (Paper 16, “RPI Opposition”), and Petitioner filed a Reply to the
`Opposition (Paper 18, “RPI Reply”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. Under § 314, an inter
`partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board
`determines whether to institute a trial on behalf of the Director. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.4(a).
`For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the arguments and
`evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not established a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail against the challenged
`claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`Petitioner identifies “One World Technologies, Inc. D/B/A Techtronic
`Industries Power Equipment” as the sole real party-in-interest. Pet. 1.
`Patent Owner identifies “Chervon (HK) Limited,” which Patent
`Owner states “is the owner of the entire interest” in the ’805 patent, and
`“Chervon North America Inc.,” which Patent Owner states “is an exclusive
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Patent 9,648,805 B2
`licensee of the ’805 patent with a right to enforce the patent,” as the real
`parties-in-interest. Paper 5, 1.
`Patent Owner asserts that the “Board should deny institution of review
`because Petitioner has failed to identify Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd.
`(‘Techtronic’) and Homelite Consumer Products, Inc. (‘Homelite’) as real
`parties in interest.” Prelim. Resp. 43. As stated above, we authorized
`Petitioner to file a motion to update Petitioner’s identified real parties-in-
`interest without a change in the filing date of its Petition. Because we deny
`institution on the merits of the Petition, we need not reach the real party-in-
`interest issue.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The parties identify Chervon (HK) Limited v. One World
`Technologies, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-01293-LPS (D. Del. filed July 11, 2019), as
`a matter in which the ’805 patent is involved. Pet. 1; Paper 5, 1.
`Petitioner states that this same lawsuit also involves the following
`eight other patents, which Petitioner also states are “unrelated” to the ’805
`patent: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,060,463 B2; 9,596,806 B2; 9,826,686 B2;
`9,986,686 B2; 10,070,588 B2; 10,477,772 B2; 10,485,176 B2; and
`10,524,420 B2. Pet. 1. Petitioner indicates that it filed inter partes review
`and post-grant review petitions challenging these eight patents.1 Id. Patent
`Owner does not mention these other patents or the petitions filed challenging
`these patents.
`
`
`1 The petitions filed for these eight patents are IPR2020-00883, IPR2020-
`00884, IPR2020-00886, IPR2020-00887, IPR2020-00888, PGR2020-00059,
`PGR2020-00060, and PGR2020-00061.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Patent 9,648,805 B2
`
`C. The ’805 Patent
`The disclosed invention relates broadly to the field of garden tools,
`and more specifically, to a device that locks telescoping rods forming a
`handle of a mower. Ex. 1001, 1:13–152. The objective of the disclosed
`invention is to provide a locking device that indicates to the user if the
`locking device is not engaged properly. Id. at 1:38–43. As shown in Figure
`9 from the ’805 patent, reproduced below, one preferred embodiment of
`locking device 100 is on a lawn mower.
`
`
`Fig. 9 is a schematic view of a mower including
`locking device 100 for telescopic rod 20 of Fig. 2.
`
`
`2 Citations are to the column:line(s) of the patent.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Patent 9,648,805 B2
`Figure 2 from the ’805 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Fig. 2 is a schematic view of locking device 100
`for inner tube 21 and outer tube 22 of tube 20.
`As shown in the figures of the ’805 patent, locking device 100
`includes base 10, operating lever 12 and “repulsion generating member” 13.
`Ex. 1001, 2:64–66. In the illustrated device, “repulsion generating member”
`13 is a torsion spring with one end, 13a, connected to base 10 and the other
`end, 13b, connected to operating lever 12. Id. at 3:5–7. When operating
`lever 12 is in a “releasing position,” torsion spring 13 is in a “natural
`condition,” and when operating lever 12 is in a “locking position,” torsion
`spring 13 is in a “compressed condition.” Id. at 3:8–11; see also Fig. 4
`(showing lever 12 in the open or “releasing position”), Fig. 5 (showing lever
`12 in the closed or “locking position”)3. In the “releasing position,” a
`“relatively small pretension force” may be applied to torsion spring 13.
`Id. at 3:11–13.
`
`
`3 Petitioner’s descriptions of Figures 4 and 5 is in error. See Pet. 4.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Patent 9,648,805 B2
`As shown in Figure 2, rod 20 includes inner tube 21, outer tube 22,
`and locking device 100. Ex. 1001, 3:14–17. Inner tube 21 is slidably
`connected to outer tube 22. Id. at 3:17–18. Locking device 100 locks the
`relative position between inner tube 21 and outer tube 22. Id. at 3:18–20.
`The Specification states “[b]ase 10 of locking device 100 is sleeved on the
`outer tube 21” (id. at 3:20–21), which likely was intended to refer to outer
`sleeve 22, as shown in Figure 2.
`In use, when operating lever 12 is rotated to the locking position,
`“locking member 12a” (see Figure 3) passes through hole 22a (see Figure 5)
`to compress inner tube 21. Ex. 1001, 3:24–27. Locking member 12a may
`directly apply a force to inner tube 21, or compression member 22b (see
`Figure 4) may be used to enable locking member 12a to fix the inner tube
`more firmly. Id. at 3:27–30.
`In addition to locking member 12a, operating lever 12 further includes
`locking reinforcement member 12b (see Figure 5), such as a post, that can be
`engaged with hole 21a in inner tube 21 and hole 22c simultaneously. Id.,
`3:31–36.
`The end of operating lever 12 opposite to locking member 12a is
`provided with a third locking feature, which is friction portion 12c (see
`Figure 5). When operating lever 12 is rotated to the locking position,
`friction portion 12c engages with outer wall 10a of base 10. Id., 3:37–41.
`According to the Specification, the “beneficial effect” of the described
`devices is that when operating lever 12 does not completely reach the
`locking position due to “abnormal operation,” operating lever 12 “will return
`to the ‘releasing position’ because of the ‘repulsion force’” from the torsion
`spring, which is “repulsion generating member” 13. Id., 2:19–27. In
`essence, if the device is not properly locked, spring 13 forces lever 12 back
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Patent 9,648,805 B2
`to the open position. As described in the Specification, this “provide[s] an
`indication to the user” that inner tube 21 is not locked to outer tube 22.
`Ex. 1001, 2:27–28.
`
`D. Representative Claim
`Independent claim 1, the sole challenged claim, is reproduced below.
`1. A mower, comprising:
`a main body;
`four wheels supporting the main body; and
`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
`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,
`wherein the inner tube has a first through hole and the
`outer tube has a cooperating second through hole, the operating
`lever further comprises a locking reinforcement member for
`engagement with the first through hole and the second through
`hole simultaneously when the first through hole and the second
`through hole are aligned and the locking member is moved
`towards the locking position, and
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Patent 9,648,805 B2
`wherein a second end of the operating lever opposite to the
`first end of the locking member is provided with a friction
`portion, and when the operating lever is rotated to the locking
`position the friction portion is frictionally engaged with the outer
`wall of the base.
`
`
`E. Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
`A petition must include a statement of the precise relief requested for
`each claim challenged and must identify the patents or printed publications
`relied upon for each ground. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(2). In compliance with these requirements, Petitioner asserts,
`under the heading “Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested,” that claim 1 is unpatentable on the following grounds (Pet. 3):
`Claim Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §
`References/Basis
`Langdon4 in view of Wu5 or
`1
`103
`Pronzati6
`Langdon in view of Idota7 in
`further view of Wu
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration testimony of Edward Smith
`Reed (Ex. 1003).
`There is considerable inconsistency in the Petition, however, on the
`patents or printed publications relied upon for each asserted Ground.
`The chart above represents the information asserted by Petitioner on
`page 3 of the Petition. It includes three separate and distinct asserted
`grounds, each based on 35 U.S.C. § 103: (1) Langdon and Wu; (2) Langdon
`and Pronzati; and (3) Langdon, Idota, and Wu. Pet. 3. The substantive
`
`103
`
`1
`
`
`4 US 5,209,051, issued May 11, 1993 (Ex. 1012, “Langdon”).
`5 US 7,179,200 B1, issued Feb. 20, 2007 (Ex. 1035, “Wu”)
`6 EP 0 822 346 A1, published Feb. 4, 1998 (Ex. 1033, “Pronzati”).
`7 JP 2003 130 017A, published May 8, 2003 (Ex. 1032, “Idota”).
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Patent 9,648,805 B2
`arguments in the Petition, however, are significantly different from the
`Grounds listed in the chart on page 3 of the Petition.
`On page 17 of the Petition, Petitioner asserts as “Ground 1” that
`“claim 1 is obvious . . . over Langdon in view of Wu and Schantz8.” Pet. 17
`(see Heading VII (all capital, bold font and patent citations deleted)).9 This
`is different from Ground 1 asserted on page 3. Moreover, as actually
`argued, Ground 1 asserts yet a third different version of Ground 1, which
`relies on Langdon (e.g., id. at 18 (arguing “Langdon discloses . . . ”)), Wu
`(e.g., id. at 26 (“A POSITA would have understood Wu to offer obvious
`safety solutions . . . .”)), Schantz (e.g., id. at 34 (“Schantz teaches” . . . the
`locking member 88 repulses the locking pin toward its releasing position.”)),
`and Pronzati (e.g., id. at 37–38 (“A POSITA would have also considered
`altering Wu’s locking lever 7 with the lever of Pronzati.”)). Thus, as
`argued, Ground 1 is based on Langdon, Wu, Schantz, and Pronzati.
`On page 39 of the Petition, Petitioner asserts as “Ground 2” that
`“claim 1 “is obvious . . . over Langdon and Idota.” Pet. 39 (see Heading
`VIII (all capital, bold font and patent citations deleted)). This is different
`from Ground 2 asserted on page 3. Moreover, as actually argued, Ground 2
`asserts yet a third different version of Ground 2, which relies on Langdon
`(e.g., id., 41 (arguing “Langdon discloses . . . ”)), Idota (e.g., id., 42
`
`
`8 US 3,029,887, issued April 17, 1962 (Ex. 1034, “Schantz”).
`9 To add further inconsistency to the asserted Grounds, the Table of Contents
`identifies a single Ground of asserted unpatentability, which is stated as
`“Ground 1: Claim 1 Is Obvious Over Langdon In View Of Wu.” Pet. ii (see
`Heading VII, all capital font and patent citations deleted). This sole asserted
`Ground is stated to be on page 17 of the Petition. The Table of Contents
`Ground not only is inconsistent with the chart reproduced from page 3 of the
`Petition, it also is inconsistent with the Ground asserted on page 17.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Patent 9,648,805 B2
`(asserting “Idota discloses . . . ”)), and Pronzati (e.g., Pet. 50 (“[A] POSITA
`would have been motivated to alter Idota to place the friction portion as
`claimed, such as disclosed in Pronzati.”)). Thus, as argued, Ground 2 is
`based on Langdon, Idota, and Pronzati.
`Patent Owner asserts that based on the inconsistencies, noted above,
`in the asserted Grounds we should deny institution under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 312(a)(3) because Petitioner has failed to identify its challenged grounds
`with the requisite particularity. Prelim. Resp. 10–13. Nonetheless, Patent
`Owner responded on the merits of the Grounds actually argued by Petitioner.
`See Prelim. Resp. 17–31 (addressing Ground 1, as argued); id. at 31–42
`(addressing Ground 2, as argued).
`While we recognize the inconsistencies in the various identifications
`and headings stating the asserted Grounds, we, and Patent Owner, were able
`to understand the Grounds actually argued. Thus, we determine it is
`appropriate in the specific circumstances of this case to address the merits of
`the argued Grounds.
`II. PATENTABILITY OF THE ’805 PATENT
`A. Applicable Law
`Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3)
`the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when available, evidence such as
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Patent 9,648,805 B2
`commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, and failure of others. 10
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); see KSR, 550 U.S.
`at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in any
`particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
`controls.”). The Court in Graham explained that these factual inquiries
`promote “uniformity and definiteness,” for “[w]hat is obvious is not a
`question upon which there is likely to be uniformity of thought in every
`given factual context.” 383 U.S. at 18.
`The Supreme Court made clear that we apply “an expansive and
`flexible approach” to the question of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415.
`Whether a patent claiming the combination of prior art elements would have
`been obvious is determined by whether the improvement is more than the
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
`Id. at 417. To support this conclusion, however, it is not enough to show
`merely that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate
`limitation in a challenged claim. Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655
`F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Rather, obviousness additionally requires
`that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention “would have
`selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal course of
`research and development to yield the claimed invention.” Id.; see also
`Orexo AB v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC, 903 F.3d 1265, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`(“The question is not whether the various references separately taught
`components of the ’330 Patent formulation, but whether the prior art
`suggested the selection and combination achieved by the ’330 inventors.”).
`
`
`10 Patent Owner does not direct us to any objective evidence of non-
`obviousness.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Patent 9,648,805 B2
`In determining whether there would have been a motivation to
`combine prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention, it is
`insufficient to simply conclude the combination would have been obvious
`without identifying any reason why a person of skill in the art would have
`made the combination. Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848
`F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`Moreover, in determining the differences between the prior art and the
`claims, the question under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not whether the differences
`themselves would have been obvious, but whether the claimed invention as a
`whole would have been obvious. Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State
`Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 164 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“It is elementary that the
`claimed invention must be considered as a whole in deciding the question of
`obviousness.”); see also Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530,
`1537 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[T]he question under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not whether
`the differences themselves would have been obvious. Consideration of
`differences, like each of the findings set forth in Graham, is but an aid in
`reaching the ultimate determination of whether the claimed invention as a
`whole would have been obvious.”).
`As a factfinder, we also must be aware “of the distortion caused by
`hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post
`reasoning.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill
`The level of skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view
`the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d
`1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the level of skill in the art is a prism or lens
`through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed
`invention”).
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Patent 9,648,805 B2
`Factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill in the
`art include: (1) educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems
`encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity
`with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and
`(6) educational level of workers active in the field. Env’t Designs, Ltd. v.
`Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–697 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic
`Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed.
`Cir. 1983)). Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or
`more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id.
`Moreover, these factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to
`determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd,
`Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`In determining a level of ordinary skill, we also may look to the prior
`art, which may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.
`Additionally, the Supreme Court informs us that “[a] person of
`ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill 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.” Pet. 10.
`Patent Owner states “[f]or the purposes of this preliminary response
`only, Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the
`art.” Prelim. Resp. 5.
`For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of
`the level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine that this definition is
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Patent 9,648,805 B2
`consistent with the prior art of record and the skill reflected in the
`Specification of the ’805 patent, based on our review of the limited record.
`Claim Construction
`C.
`In inter partes reviews, we interpret a claim “using the same claim
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil
`action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The claim
`construction standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b) is
`generally referred to as the Phillips standard. See Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under this standard, we construe
`the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such
`claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution
`history pertaining to the patent.” Id.
`Petitioner proposes a specific construction of the term “repulsion
`generating member.” Pet. 11–12. Patent Owner states that “no construction
`is required” at this time. Prelim. Resp. 7.
`We agree with Patent Owner. “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that
`are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.
`Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We determine that
`an explicit construction of the claims is not necessary for the purposes of
`determining whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner
`would prevail in this proceeding.
`Against this general background of applicable law, level of ordinary
`skill, and claim construction, we consider the arguments and evidence of the
`parties.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Patent 9,648,805 B2
`D. Ground 1 – Patentability of Claim 1
`Based on Langdon, Wu, Schantz, and Pronzati
`Petitioner argues that claim 1 would have been obvious based on
`Langdon, Wu, Schantz, and Pronzati, and in further consideration of
`background prior art consisting of industry regulations and guidelines. Pet.
`17–39.
`Patent Owner asserts a number of substantive and procedural defenses
`to Ground 1, including:
`(1) Discretionary denial of the Petition based on the parallel district
`court case identified above as a related matter (Prelim. Resp. 7–9);
`(2) Denial of the Petition because Petitioner failed to identify its
`challenged grounds with the requisite particularity (id. at 10–13);
`(3) Denial of the Petition because Petitioner has failed to establish a
`likelihood of success based on
`(a) Failure to provide an evidence-based motivation to combine
`the asserted references (Id. at 14–16, 25–31);
`(b) Wu and Pronzati being non-analogous art (id. at 17–22); and
`(c) Failure of the references to disclose a “repulsion generating
`member” as recited in claim 1 (id. at 22–24);
`(4) Denial of the Petition because Petitioner failed to identify all real
`parties in interest (id. at 43–49); and
`(5) Denial of the Petition because this proceeding is unconstitutional
`based on the improper appointment of the assigned Administrative Patent
`Judges (id. at 49–50).
`Many of these same procedural arguments apply as well to Ground 2,
`which we discuss in Section II.E.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Patent 9,648,805 B2
`As discussed in detail below, we determine that Petitioner failed to
`provide an evidence-based motivation to combine the asserted references.
`We first summarize below the references actually argued in
`Petitioner’s Ground 1. See Pet. 17–39.
`1. Langdon (Ex. 1012)
`Langdon is directed to a rotary lawn mower with handles that can also
`function as lift handles. Ex. 1012, 1:7–10. As summarized in the Abstract,
`the push handle assembly includes:
`telescoping or pivotal members . . . pivotally attached to the deck
`such that the push handles may be folded over said motor and
`attached to said mower deck forward of the motor thus permitting
`a user of said mower to selectively grasp said push handle
`assembly to lift and move said rotary mower from one location
`to another.
`Id. at Abstract.
`Langdon’s Figure 5 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 5 depicts “a perspective view of an[] embodiment . . . wherein
`the push handles [of the lawnmower] fold over the mower.” Ex. 1012, 1:62–
`64. Relevant to this Decision, Langdon discloses that its push handles
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Patent 9,648,805 B2
`telescope. Hand-gripping portion 21 of push handles 20 include tubular
`portion 62 and tubular portion 82, “which are telescoped upwardly and
`inwardly into tubular member 62.” Ex. 1012, 4:1–15. As such, “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.” Id. at 4:16–
`18. As shown in Figure 5, when the telescoping handle portions are in their
`“collapsed” position, the push handle is approximately the length of the
`deck. Id. at 4:18–20. This is consistent with the general objective of
`Langdon, which is to provide a mower structure that includes “hand grips
`whereby one or two people may grip the handles 83 and lift the lawn mower
`easily.” Id. at 4:24–27.
`“Locking means” 69, such as “a spring-biased pin,” locks the
`telescoping push handles 20 in an extended, operating position.
`Ex. 1012, 4:6–8. Langdon provides no further details about the structure or
`function of “locking means” 69.
`In addition to “locking means” 69 for the telescoping handles,
`Langdon also discloses that forward deck portion 60 of the mower includes
`latching mechanism 100 for securing collapsed grip handle 21 to the mower
`deck. This allows collapsed handle 20 to be used to lift or carry the lawn
`mower. Id. at 4:30–33. This allows collapsed handle 20 to replace, or
`effectively serve as, the separate and distinct rail-like lift handle assembly 22
`affixed to deck 10, as shown in Figure 1.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Patent 9,648,805 B2
`Latching mechanism 100 is shown in Figures 6 and 7 of Langdon.
`Figure 7 is reproduced below.
`
`
`The perspective view of latching mechanism 100, shown in Figure 7,
`includes base 102 which is fastened to the deck. Ex. 1012, 4:34–37.
`Latching mechanism 100 also includes rod 108 having bulbous head 110 at
`one end, and two “fingers,” 112 and 114 at its other end. To secure the
`collapsed handle to the deck, finger 112 is inserted into aperture 90 of hand
`grip portion 21 and finger 114 engages the top surface of hand grip portion
`21. Id. at 4:37–41. Spring 116 maintains the rod 108 biased in the forward
`direction. Id. at 4:41–43.
`In order to release telescoping handle 20 from its collapsed carrying
`position, shown in Figure 5, into its extended, rotated, operating position for
`mowing, (1) rod 108 is pulled back whereby the fingers 112 and 114
`disengage from handle 20, and (2) spring-biased pin of “locking means” 69
`is released, thus allowing handle 20 to be extended into its operating
`position. Id. at 4:44–47.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Patent 9,648,805 B2
`
`2. Wu (Ex. 1035)
`Wu is directed to a wheelchair having two adjustment structures for
`allowing adjustment of the elevation of its handles. Ex. 1035, 1:7–10.
`Figure 3, reproduced below, shows the general structure of the wheelchair.
`
`
`Figure 3 is an elevational view of the wheelchair disclosed in Wu. As
`shown, the wheelchair includes two main frame bars 3 and two handlebars 4.
`Id. at 2:4–6. Main frame bars 3 fit within sleeves 21. Id. at 2:13–16. Lock
`screws 212 are inserted through respective longitudinal sliding slots 211 (see
`Fig. 4) at each of sleeves 21 and threaded into main frame bars 3 to lock the
`main frame bars 3 to the back frame 2. Id. at 2:16–20.
`Wu also discloses handlebars 4 connected to top ends 31 of main
`frame bars 3. Id. at 2:27–29. Each handlebar 4 has a plurality of locating
`holes 411 arranged at different elevations. Id. at 2:30–31. An adjustment
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Patent 9,648,805 B2
`structure between each main frame bar 3 and its respective handlebar 4
`allows adjustment of the elevation of each handlebar 4. Ex. 1035, 2:32–35.
`The adjustment structure is shown generally in Figures 6 and 8, which are
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6 is an elevational view of the adjustment structure between
`frame bar 3 and handlebar 4. Figure 8 is a longitudinal, sectional view of the
`adjustment structure in the unlocked position. The adjustment structure
`includes holder block 5, a “holding down block” 6, and locking lever 7.
`Id. at 2:35–37. As shown in Figure 8, longitudinal sliding slot 33 and
`transverse locating hole 34 are formed in top end 31 of main frame bar 3.
`Id. at 2:38–41.
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Patent 9,648,805 B2
`For ease of comparison, Figures 8 and 9, which show, respectively,
`the unlocked position and locked position of the adjustment structure for
`handlebars 4, are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`Locking lever 7 is pivotally connected between pivot holes 521 of
`side lugs 52 of holder block 5 by a pivot bolt. Ex. 1035, 2:63–67. Locking
`lever 7 includes cam 72 (id.) and locating rod 74 (id. at 3:7). When moving
`locking lever 7 from the unlocked position (Figure 8) to the locked position
`(Figure 9), locating rod 74 is forced through locating hole 54 of holder block
`5 and locating hole 34 of the respective main frame bar 3 into one of
`locating holes 411 of the respective handlebar 4 (see Figure 9). Cam 72 will
`be forced against holding down block 6, causing inwardly curved front
`surface 611 of holding down block 6 to hold handlebar 4 in the respective
`main frame bar 3, which thereby locks handlebar 4 at the desired elevation.
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Patent 9,648,805 B2
`
`3. Schantz (Ex. 1034)
`Schantz discloses a self-propelled lawn mower in which the drive
`wheels are “clutched and unclutched,” and steered, by rotating the handle of
`the mower. Ex. 1034, 1:22–27. Of significance to the issues before us,
`Schantz also discloses “a power mower having an extensible handle.”
`Id. at 1:69–70.
`Figure 2 illustrates the disclosed mower showing the handle in “full
`lines” in a lowered position and in dotted lines in a raised and extended
`position. Id. at 2:35–38. The mower handle includes handle bar element 78
`connected to extensible handle shaft 80. Id. at 3:65–67. Handle shaft 80
`nests within handle extension shaft 82. Id. at 3:67–69. Figures 6 and 8 from
`Schantz are reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 6 is an enlarged sectional view showing the construction of
`“locking means” 86 (id. at 3:73–75) for the telescoping shafts 80 and 82.
`Id. at 2:45–47. Figure 8 is similar to Figure 6 with locking ring 98
`(id. at 4:8–10) removed. Id. at 2:51–52.11
`
`11 The description of Figure 8 in the Specification states that “the locking
`band [is] removed.” See Ex. 1034, 2:51–52. The Specification does not
`disclose an element labelled as a “locking band.” Comparing Figures 6 and
`8, it is clear that the difference between Figure 6 and 8 is that “locking ring
`98” (see id. at 4:6–10) has been removed in Figure 8. We also note the
`written description is inconsistent in using both reference numerals 98 and
`96 to identify the locking ring. Compare id. at 4:1–10 (referring to “locking
`slots 94 and 96” and “locking ring 98”) with id. at 6:18–25 (referring to both
`“locking ring 9