MotivePower, Inc.v.Cutsforth, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2014

12886979 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2014)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 31
Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: October 30, 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
MOTIVEPOWER, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
CUTSFORTH, INC.,
Patent Owner.
_______________

Case IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2
_______________

Before TRENTON A. WARD, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and CARL M. DeFRANCO,
Administrative Patent Judges.

WARD, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

2

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
MotivePower, Inc., Petitioner, filed a Petition to institute an inter partes
review of all the claims 124 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
7,990,018 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’018 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19.
Paper 1 (“Pet.”). The Board granted the Petition and instituted trial for all asserted
claims. Paper 7 (“Dec.”). Although Petitioner proposed nine grounds of
unpatentability, we instituted trial on only the following ground: Claims 1–24
would have been obvious in view of in view of Bissett,1 Kartman,2 and Ohmstedt.3
Dec. 25.
During trial, Cutsforth, Inc., Patent Owner, filed a Patent Owner Response
(“PO Resp.”) addressing the grounds involved in trial and relying on the
Declaration of Dr. Thomas A. Keim, (Ex. 2019). Paper 12. Petitioner filed a
Reply to Patent Owner’s Response. Paper 21 (“Pet. Reply”). An oral hearing was
held on September 16, 2014, and a transcript of the hearing is included in the
record. Paper 30 (“Tr.”).
We have statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written
decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has met its burden
to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–24 of the ’018 patent are
unpatentable.

1 U.S. Patent No. 3,432,708 (Ex. 1005) (“Bissett”).
2 U.S. Patent No. 5,043,619 (Ex. 1004) (“Kartman”).
3 U.S. Patent No. 3,864,803 (Ex. 1003) (“Ohmstedt”).
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

3

B. Related Proceedings
Petitioner indicates that the ’018 patent is currently the subject of a co-
pending federal district court case, Cutsforth, Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc., No. 0:12-
cv-01200-SRN-JSM (D. Minn.). Pet. 2; Paper 5, 2. In addition, the patents listed
below are related to the ’018 patent and are the subject of inter partes review as
follows:
U.S. Patent No. Inter Partes Proceeding
7,122,935 B2 IPR2013-00267
7,141,906 B2 IPR2013-00268
7,417,354 B2 IPR2013-00270
8,179,014 B2 IPR2013-00272

C. The ’018 Patent
The ’018 patent generally relates to a brush holder assembly for use in
electrical devices and slip ring assemblies. Ex. 1001, 1:2527. In particular, the
patent describes that a brush is used in an electrical device to pass electrical current
from a stationary contact to a moving contact surface, and vice versa. Id. at
1:3133. The brush is typically in contact with a moving surface; thus, the surface
of the brush wears down, reducing the quality of the electrical contact. Id. at
1:4261. The ’018 patent describes that when the brush is so worn that it requires
replacement, the moving contact surface may need to be halted, which may be
difficult or expensive. Id. at 2:811. Alternatively, the ’018 patent describes that
maintaining the relative motion during replacement of the brush may be unsafe
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

4

because of the risk of arcing and an accidental short circuit in the electrical
components. Id. at 2:1215. The patent describes that it would be an advantage to
remove or replace a worn brush without stopping the moving parts involved. Id. at
2:610.
One embodiment of the ’018 patent describes a brush holder assembly with
a mounting bracket in an “engaged” configuration, relative to a lower mount block.
Id. at 2:66–3:2. For example, Figure 1 of the ’018 patent, reproduced below,
illustrates an “engaged” configuration where brush 12, surrounded by brush
box 10, contacts a conducting surface because brush spring 24 pushes the brush
toward the bottom edge of box 10. Id. at Fig.1, 4:2745,6:2034.

According to Figure 1 above, brush box 10 is affixed to beam 14, which is
affixed, via a hinged attachment, to lower mount block 16. Id. at 4:34-38. In the
“engaged” position, as shown in Figure 1, a conductive path is formed from brush
12 through brush conductor 26, terminal 28, and conductor strap 34 (not in Figure
1 but shown in Figure 2, reproduced below). Id. at 7:11–14.
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

5

The ’018 patent further describes a “disengaged” configuration, shown in
particular with respect to Figure 2, reproduced below.

As illustrated in Figure 2 above, a hinging action takes place at certain pivot
lines, such as pivot line “X,” about which beam 14 moves with respect to lower
mounting block 16. Id. at 6:4656. In the disengaged position, conductor strap 34
breaks contact with terminal 28, thus interrupting the current flow before the brush
breaks contact with the conductive surface. Id. at 10:6463.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A brush holder assembly for holding a brush having a
conductive element, the brush holder assembly comprising:
an elongate mounting block having a major axis, an upper end
and a lower end, and first and second outer side surfaces
substantially parallel to said major axis, and including a stationary
brush release proximate said lower end; and
a brush holder component adapted for removably mounting to the
mounting block, the brush holder component comprising a brush
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

6

box and a channel for receiving a portion of the mounting block
therein, the channel including first and second inner side surfaces;
the brush holder component further comprising a brush catch
having a first position and a second position, the brush catch
preventing sliding movement of a brush within the brush box in the
first position, and the brush catch permitting sliding movement of a
brush within the brush box in the second position;
wherein the stationary brush release is positioned on the
mounting block so that when the brush holder component is
mounted on the mounting block, the stationary brush release
engages with the brush catch, moving the brush catch into the
second position.

II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are interpreted
according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial
Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Claim terms also are
given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic
Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Also, we must be careful not to
read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if
the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See In re Van Geuns, 988
F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“limitations are not to be read into the claims
from the specification”).
In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted the term “mounting block” of
the ’018 patent to mean “a base for affixing to another structure.” Dec. 8.
Furthermore, we interpreted the term “removably mounting” to mean “mounting in
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

7

a manner that is not permanent.” Id. at 10. Patent Owner argues that the
constructions should be modified. Each of these terms is analyzed in turn.
1. “mounting block”
Patent Owner argues that the construction for “mounting block” must reflect
the “specification’s requirement that the mounting block must be fixed to a
location.” PO Resp. 8. In support of this argument, Patent Owner relies on Figure
15B of the ’018 patent as depicting that lower mounting block 16, i.e., the
“mounting block,” is fixed in place to mount base 41 via bolts 43. Id. at 910.
Patent Owner further points to descriptions of various embodiments of the
attachment of the “mounting block” to a base or to a location. Id. Neither Figure
15B nor the statements in the specification identified by Patent Owner require the
non-moveable, or “fixed,” aspect. Figure 15B does not show that the attachment
excludes any ability to adjust the block. Indeed, the bottom surface of the mount is
not depicted, leaving us to speculate concerning the shape of mount holes 96,
because a round hole would suggest there is no adjustability, while a slotted or
elongated hole would suggest adjustability. But see Ex. 1001, Fig. 9 (not cited by
Petitioner, but confirming that elongated holes 96 are contemplated). The lack of
description and depiction of the shape of the holes compels us to reject Patent
Owner’s characterization of Figure 15B as supporting a “fixed” or non-moveable
attachment. Furthermore, as for the descriptions of how the mount is attached, the
specification uses the word “secure” and describes various embodiments of the
attachment, none of which requires non-movability of the mount after the brush
holder component is installed. See Ex. 1001, 12:35–36 (bolts and washers “secure
the lower mount block 16 to a mount base” (emphasis added)), 14:5658 (“mount
holes 96 may include threading or other elements that allow for attachment to a
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

8

mount base”), 16:2528 (“in other embodiments, a welded, keyed, pinned or other
attachment scheme may be used to secure the lower mount block 16 to a mount
base” (emphasis added)). In fact, the specification makes a point of not limiting
the attachment of the mount to any particular method, fixed or not fixed. See id. at
12:37–41 (“or other attachment scheme may be used to secure the lower mount
block 16 to a mount base near a moving conductive surface or in position to move
relative to a conductive surface”). Nor does the language of the claim recite any
method of attachment that limits the mounting block to something that cannot be
adjusted, shifted, re-positioned, or otherwise moved, after attachment to the base.
Patent Owner further proposes that the written description teaches that all
embodiments include a “fixed” mounting block, and, therefore, the “mounting
block” should be so construed. PO Resp. 10–12. The specification states: “with
the lower mount block 16 being the only portion that must be ‘fixed’ to a location,
attachment steps are simplified.” Ex. 1001, 15:1315. We are not persuaded by
Patent Owner’s argument. Although the specification uses the word “fixed” with
respect to lower mount block 16, that portion of the specification is focused on
describing “the present embodiment” of a lower mount block shown in Figure 14,
which illustrates a lower mount block “for use in several embodiments,” not all
embodiments, as Patent Owner argues. Id. at 14:4041,15:1017 (emphasis
added). Moreover, that portion of the specification does not describe the invention
as a fixed lower mount block. Indeed, Patent Owner’s characterization of the
“fixed” lower mount block may stretch the specification too far, as it may be
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

9

inferred by the use of the word “fixed,” shrouded in quotation marks, that its use in
that passage is not to be taken literally.4
In our Decision on Institution, we noted that the specification does not
define the term “mounting block,” and that nothing in the claim language indicates
that the term is used other than in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning.
Dec. 8. Guided by evidence of the plain and ordinary meaning consistent with the
specification, we determined that the word “block” means “a base, platform or
supporting frame.”5 Id. at 89. Patent Owner, however, objects to the word
“base” as defining the “mounting block” because the claims recite another base,
the “stationary base.” PO Resp. 1112. Accordingly, to avoid confusion, Patent
Owner proffers that the construction of “mounting block” should refer to a block,
not a base. Id.
Petitioner argues that the proposal to define “mounting block” to mean a
block does not clarify any issues and that Patent Owner has not argued that the
prior art does not disclose a “block.” Pet. Reply 4. Consequently, the clarification
is unnecessary. Id. We agree with Petitioner. Although the claims recite a “base”
and a “block” distinctly, the claims, however, may recite these two terms in a
synonymous ordinary meaning, to indicate that the two distinct structures have
similar functions, as bases.
Therefore, we construe the term “mounting block” according to the ordinary
meaning of the term to mean “a base for affixing to another structure.”

4 See, e.g., Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition, Section 7.58 (“When a word or
term is not used functionally but is referred to as the word or term itself, it is either
italicized or enclosed in quotation marks.”).
5 Block Definition (4), WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY,
UNABRIDGED (1993) (Ex. 3001).
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

10

2. “removably mounting”
Claims 1, 12, and 17 recite the term “removably mounting.” Patent Owner
argues that our construction does not reflect the meaning the phrase would have to
one skilled in the art at the time of the invention. PO Resp. 14. Specifically,
Patent Owner proffers the Keim Declaration, various references, and the stated
problems in the Background of the Invention to argue that the term “removable”
means without requiring removal of attachment hardware like nuts and bolts. Id. at
1415 (citing Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 8384, Ex. 1001, 2:8–19, and Exs. 2004, 2005, and
2009). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument and evidence.
First, the specification of the ’018 patent does not support Patent Owner’s
contention that not removing hardware attachments results from the desire to
provide safe, easy removal and replacement of the brush assembly while the
machine is running. The embodiments in the ’018 patent describing the removal of
the brush relate to the safety aspects of discontinuing the current when the device
is in the disengaged position. See Ex. 1001, 10:4763, 11:58. These
embodiments do not describe, or even imply, in any way, that “removably
mounting” is accomplished because one can avoid the removal of nuts and bolts
when disengaging the brush. Although the Summary section of the specification
describes “readily” removing from service a brush “without removing attachment
hardware such as nuts or bolts,” that description applies to “[s]ome example
embodiments.” Id. at 2:2325. That Summary also describes other reasons for
ease of removal of the brush, for example, because the device is a “contained
system” that is “easier to deal with and control during removal.” Id. at 2:2834.
Also instructive is the description of it “be[ing] useful to easily or reversibly
disengage a brush from a commutator to determine the extent of wear and perform
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

11

repairs.” Id. at 17:4244.
Accordingly, the specification of the ’018 patent describes various ways to
accomplish safety and ease of removal, but does not require that such removal be
accomplished without removal of attachment hardware. Patent Owner’s arguments
focus on exemplary embodiments, which we are careful not to incorporate into the
claims. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (warning
“against confining the claims to those embodiments.”). Furthermore, we note that
the specification describes attachment of a “removal tool” for “disengagement
manipulation.” See Ex. 1001, Fig. 9, 11:49–53, 12:1223 (emphasis added). The
removal tool engages a retractable catch pin into a pin seat in the beam of the
device and by pulling a release tab with the thumb, the catch pin disengages,
thereby attaching and removing a catch pin into the device in order to remove the
brush holder. See id. at 11:48–53. The embodiments of the removal tool further
confirm that the ’018 patent does not contemplate the exclusion of all hardware
attachments from the removal process and that by describing how the insertion and
release of a pin is used in removing the brush holder, the specification does not
exclude using similarly functioning structures, such as nuts.
Second, with regard to the extrinsic evidence allegedly showing evidence
that the term “removably mounting” would have the meaning proffered by Patent
Owner, we are not persuaded by that evidence. First, the Keim Declaration, in the
passages cited, attempts to support Patent Owner’s construction by referring to the
benefit of using one versus two hands when removing a brush. Ex. 2019 ¶ 83. The
specification, however, does not mention, or even imply, that the objective of the
safe removal is to avoid using two hands. Second, the remaining passages of the
Keim Declaration do not persuade us that the term “removable” had the meaning
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

12

Patent Owner argues. For example, the argument that in 1976 an article referred to
a brush holder as “removable with an insulated handle” does not support the
contention that the word “removable” means without having to remove attachment
hardware such as nuts and bolts. See Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 8385 (relying on references that
use the word “removable” in connection with brush holders). Patent Owner has
not shown that the articles relied on address the claim term “removably mounting,”
much less that the word “removable” somehow is unique to the situation where a
brush holder is mounted in such a manner that it can be removed without removing
attachment hardware. The more reasonable interpretation of those articles is that
the word “removable” is used in the plain and ordinary sense of the word as known
to laypersons, and not the special circumstances alleged by Patent Owner. Absent
a special definition set forth in the specification and given the evidence of the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, we are not persuaded that
“removably mounting” has a different meaning to those of ordinary skill in the art.
See E-Pass Tech, Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(Where no explicit definition for the term “electronic multi-function card” was
given in the specification, this term should be given its ordinary meaning and
broadest reasonable interpretation; the term should not be limited to the industry
standard definition of credit card where there is no suggestion that this definition
applies to the electronic multi-function card as claimed, and should not be limited
to preferred embodiments in the specification.).
As stated in our Decision on Institution, the claim language and the
specification are evidence of the plain and ordinary meaning. In the claim
language, the specific structures associated with the function of “removably
mounting” include a brush holder component “for removably mounting to the
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

13

mounting block.” Claim 1 further recites the brush holder component’s
relationship with the “mounting block”; it recites that the brush holder component
comprises a “channel for receiving a portion of the mounting block therein.” The
specification describes several embodiments describing the interaction between the
beam (described as having a “channel-like structure”) and the mounting block,
such as the “engaged” position, the “disengaged” position, and intermediate stages.
See Ex. 1001, 4:2730, see also 14:721, Figs. 13A13C (illustrating a disengaged
position of beam 132 having a pivot point “X” coupled with lower mount 130
through the groove there shown). Furthermore, “[i]n several embodiments, the
beam 14 may be completely removed/separated from the lower mount block 16.”
Id. at 4:4143. These positions and the described removal of beam 14 are
consistent with the removability of the beam with respect to the lower mount
block. That is, the beam is mounted on the mounting block in a manner that is not
permanent so it can be removed as needed.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the construction proffered by
Petitioner is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term
“removably mounting”: “mounting in a manner that is not permanent.”
B. Obviousness over Bissett, Kartman, and Ohmstedt
With respect to the alleged ground of unpatentability based on obviousness
over Bissett, Kartman, and Ohmstedt, we have reviewed the Petition, the Patent
Owner Response, and Petitioner’s Reply, as well as the relevant evidence
discussed in each of those papers.
1. Overview of Bissett (Ex. 1005)
Bissett relates to a brush assembly for a dynamoelectric machine. Ex. 1005,
1:910. The Bissett brush assembly is removable so that the brush can be replaced
IPR201
Patent 7

while th
below.
Figure 1
machine
dispose
contacts
handle
remova
3-00274
,990,018 B
e machine
shows th
. Id. at 1:
d on a brus
the surfac
14 operate
l of worn g
2
is running
e general a
41–43. Br
h support
e of the ro
s to detach
enerator b
. Id. at 1:
rrangemen
ush 24 an
backplate
tating col
the brush
rush 24. I

14
1013. Fi
t of a bru
d spring 26
10 around
lector ring
assembly
d. at 2:44
gure 1 of

sh mounte
, as show
brush fram
2. Id. at 1
from brus
62.
Bissett is r
d in relatio
n in Figure
e 4 such
:5157. R
h frame 4
eproduced
n to the
1, are
that brush
emovable
to allow

24

IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

15

Illustrating the removed brush assembly 12 is Figure 4 of Bissett,
reproduced below.

Figure 4 depicts brush assembly 12 disconnected from backplate 10 and removable
handle 14 disconnected from brush assembly 12. Id. at 2:6367. Brush assembly
12 comprises L-shaped member 20 configured as an elongated side that slides into
a securely held position relative to dovetails 18. Id. at 1:6872. L-shaped member
20 further comprises brush holder 22 configured as a hollow rectangular structure
that accommodates brush 24. Id. at 2:15.
2. Overview of Ohmstedt (Ex. 1003)
Ohmstedt discloses a brush mounting device that allows “brush maintenance
[to] occur while the machine is under load and voltage is applied to the brushes.”
Ex. 1003, 2:6466. Figure 1 of Ohmstedt is reproduced below.
IPR201
Patent 7

A
that incl
ring 15.
ring 15,
the dyna
brush ho
to cause
portion
3-00274
,990,018 B
s shown a
udes brush
Ex. 1003
while bru
moelectri
lder 11 pr
the brush
of the brus
2
bove in Fi
holder 1
, 2:57. O
sh holder
c machine
ovides div
holder to
h box and
gure 1, Oh
1 having b
hmstedt d
11 and bru
. Id. at 2:5
ergent por
release the
is in cont

16
mstedt dis
rush 27 an
iscloses th
sh 27 are r
962. Fu
tions 23 th
brush, wh
act with th
closes a b
d brush bo
at brush b
emovable
rthermore
at can eng
ich “float
e collector

rush moun
x 13 attac
ox 13 is fi
from brus
, Ohmsted
age, slida
s” in the re
ring unde
ting devic
hed to bus
xed to bus
h box 13 a
t discloses
bly, ramps
ctangular
r pressure
e

nd
that
59

IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

17

exerted by coil spring 29. Id. at 2:3744. Additionally, Ohmstedt discloses
inwardly extending teeth 25 for tightly gripping the electrically conductive brush
27. Id. at 2:1517.
3. Overview of Kartman (Ex. 1004)
Kartman discloses a brush holder assembly for use in a dynamoelectric
machine, such as a motor or generator. Ex. 1004, Abstract, 3:34. The assembly is
mounted on a frame of the machine such that the brushes engage with the
machine’s rotatable commutator. Id. at 3:3536. The components of the brush
holder assembly are concentrated in a central location and in closely spaced
relation to each other to allow for fast and safe service, such as adjustment or
removal of the brush or brush holder. Id. at 3:3741, 4:25–31, 5:4651.
Furthermore, the brush holders are attached, side-by-side, to the assembly, each by
a detachable connection that permits their individual replacement. Id. at Abstract.
One embodiment of the Kartman brush holder assembly 1 mounted on frame
2 of a machine is depicted in Figure 1, reproduced below.

As shown in Figure 1 above, brush holder assembly 1 comprises casting 8 with
mounting surface 14, “to which a plurality of individual brush holders are
IPR201
Patent 7

detacha
connect
Id. at 3:
operativ
force ap
A
holder 3
3, repro
F
brush ho
quick-re
the pair
Sliding
3-00274
,990,018 B
bly connec
ed—detac
6264. Br
e position
plying me
n explode
1, brush 3
duced belo
igure 3 fur
lder 31 to
lease clam
of vertical
quick-rele
2
ted.” Id. a
hably, mec
ush holde
against th
ans 54 tha
d view of
, and cons
w.
ther depic
mounting
p bar 46,
ly spaced-
ase clamp
t 3:5152
hanically,
r 31 slidab
e curved s
t includes
brush hold
tant brush
ts detachab
surface 14
having a p
apart hole
bar 46 into

18
. Each ind
and electr
ly receive
urface of c
force sprin
er assemb
force appl
le connec
. Id. at 3
air of thre
s 44 on mo
rear chan
ividual br
ically—to
s brush 3,
ommutato
g 64. Id.
ly 1, illust
ying mean
ting mean
:6266. M
aded apert
unting su
nel 48 of
ush holder
mounting
which is h
r 4 by con
at 4:3236
rating deta
s 54, is sh
s 42 for co
eans 42 c
ures 51 th
rface 14. I
brush hold
31 is
surface 1
eld in the
stant brush
, 4548.
ils of brus
own in Fig

nnecting
omprises
at align wi
d. at 4:9
er 31 and
4.

h
ure
th
14.
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

19

tightening cap screws 47 through threaded apertures 51 results in a compressive
force on clamp bar 46 that secures brush holder 31 to casting 8 of brush holder
assembly 1. Id. at 4:1926. Unscrewing slightly cap screws 47 to an unclamped
position releases clamp bar 46 from the compressive force, thus permitting the
adjustment or removal of the brush box. Id. at 4:2631.
4. Analysis
Concerning independent claim 1, Petitioner contends that Bissett discloses a
brush holder component (brush assembly 12) adapted for removably mounting to
the mounting block (dovetails 18) by providing a channel for receiving a portion of
the mounting block (dovetails 18). Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:61–2:1, Figs. 3–4).
Furthermore, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to adapt the brush
holder (brush assembly 12) of Bissett to include the brush catch of Ohmstedt,
whereby divergent portion 23 of Ohmstedt would extend downward from the
Bissett channel such that teeth 25 of Ohmstedt engage the Bissett brush 24. Pet. 10
(citing Ex. 1003, 1:14–18, 28–50; Ex. 1005, Fig. 4). Accordingly, Petitioner
argues that the brush catch of Ohmstedt (divergent portion 23 and teeth 25) has a
first position preventing sliding movement of a brush and a second position
permitting sliding movement of a brush. Pet. 16 (Ex. 1003, 2:5–49, 3:8–12,
Figs. 1, 2). Additionally, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to
include the Ohmstedt brush release (ramps 59) in a position to engage the brush
catch below the mounting structure (dovetails 18). Pet. 10–11, 17 (citing Ex. 1003,
2:15–17, 39–43, Fig. 2). The Petitioner also argues that it would have been
obvious to adapt the mounting block of Bissett (dovetails 18) with the mounting
block of Kartman. Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:19–22 and Ex. 1005, 1:63–64).
More particularly, Petitioner proposes that the “T” shaped channel in Bissett may
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

20

be modified to incorporate the elongated mounting block structure of Kartman
(detachable connecting means 42), which also is configured to slidably engage a
“T” shaped channel. Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:19–22, Fig. 3; Ex. 1005, 1:63–
64, Fig. 4).
Patent Owner argues that the proposed combination of Bissett, Ohmstedt,
and Kartman fails to render any claims obvious. PO Resp. 17–50. We address
Patent Owner’s arguments in turn.
a. Patent Owner’s Arguments Against the Combination of
Bissett and Kartman
Patent Owner argues that the Board should reject Petitioner’s proposed
modification of the mounting block of Bissett with the mounting block of Kartman.
PO Resp. 18–19. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that Bissett teaches brush
replacement based on the “one hand rule,” in which an operator should not place
two hands on an electrified device. Id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 2019 ¶ 47). Patent
Owner further argues that Kartman’s detachable connecting means 42 requires the
operator to use two hands in manipulating tools to loosen cap screws 47. PO Resp.
25–26 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:22–25; Ex. 2019 ¶ 134). Thus, Patent Owner argues that
Kartman’s detachable connecting means 42 would make Bissett’s device
inoperable for its intended purpose by requiring the operator to violate the “one
hand rule” to manipulate cap screws 47.
We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument because Patent Owner
fails to identify any disclosure in Bissett that requires operation in accordance with
a “one hand rule.” In an attempt to support Patent Owner’s arguments that Bissett
requires the “one hand rule,” Patent Owner cites the following disclosure in
Bissett:
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

21

In collector brush assemblies generally known to the prior art,
the manipulation[s] required to replace a brush are sometimes
rather involved, usually calling for the shutdown of the
generator.
PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:14–25). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s
assertion that this disclosure requires the Bissett device to use the “one hand rule,”
as the cited disclosure merely states that prior art devices usually required shutting
down the generator to change brushes. See Ex. 1005, 1:14–25. Additionally,
Patent Owner cites the following disclosure of Bissett as providing an “express
invocation against the use of []tools” (PO Resp. 27) to manipulate the mounting
block:
Each brush assembly is installable and removable by an insulated
handle[,] which is itself removable from each brush assembly so that
only one such handle is required to service an entire generator.
PO Resp. 27 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:36–40). We are not persuaded that this disclosure
is an “express invocation against the use of [] tools” to manipulate the mounting
block, but rather, a statement regarding the ability of an operator to use a single
insulated handle with multiple Bissett brush assemblies.
These cited disclosures from Bissett do not instruct an operator to use the
“one hand rule.” In fact, the term “one hand rule” is not mentioned in Bissett. As
we are not persuaded by Patent Owner that the Bissett brush assembly requires
compliance with a “one hand rule,” we not persuaded that the modification of the
mounting block of Bissett with the mounting block of Kartman would be contrary
to the intended purpose of the Bissett brush assembly.
b. Patent Owner’s Arguments Against the Combination of
Ohmstedt with Bissett and Kartman
Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to offer any evidence to support the
combination of Ohmstedt with Bissett and Kartman. PO Resp. 32–33.
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

22

First, Patent Owner argues that that the Ohmstedt inventors were aware of
the Bissett brush assembly at the time of invention, but did not “do what
[Petitioner] argues would have been a ‘common sense alternative’ and modify
Bissett with the ‘brush catch and brush release of Ohmstedt.’” PO Resp. 34. We
are not persuaded that simply because one group of inventors did not make the
combination proposed by Petitioner, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not have found it obvious to make the combination. The action, or inaction, of the
Ohmstedt group of inventors is not determinative of the obviousness of Petitioner’s
proposed combination.
Second, Patent Owner argues that Bissett and Ohmstedt use different
structures, and that Ohmstedt teaches away from the Bissett brush assembly. PO
Resp. 35–37. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that Ohmstedt teaches a
permanently mounted brush box 13, which is contrary to Bissett’s bolts 16 that
provide dovetails 18 and backplate 10 for affixing the removable brush holder. PO
Resp. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1003, Fig. 1; Ex. 1005, 1:61–66, 2:5–11, 16–29; Ex. 2019
¶¶ 95–96, 168). Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Ohmstedt’s brush box 13 are
unpersuasive, because Petitioner’s challenge does not rely upon Ohmstedt’s brush
box 13 as teaching the mounting block, but relies upon brush holder component 11
of Ohmstedt to modify brush holder component 12 of Bissett. See Pet. 15–17.
Moreover, although Petitioner has shown that brush box 13 of Ohmstedt compares
to the claimed mounting block, that comparison is made with regard to teaching a
brush release positioned on the mounting block, for which, again, Petitioner relies
on Bissett and Kartman. See id.
Third, Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not have combined Ohmstedt with Bissett and Kartman because the two designs
are incompatible. PO Resp. 37. More particularly, Patent Owner argues that teeth
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

23

25, divergent portions 23, and ramps 59 disclosed in Ohmstedt are not suitable for
incorporation into the Bissett brush assembly, because Ohmstedt’s two ramps 59
remain in a fixed position and serve to separate divergent portions 23, so as to
release the brush. PO Resp. 38 (Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 146, 166). Patent Owner alleges that
incorporating Ohmstedt’s mechanism would mean keeping the brush holder fixed
in the machine. PO Resp. 39. In addition to arguing incompatibility, Patent
Owner argues that Ohmstedt’s brush box 13 could not be removed for cleaning
while the machine was in operation. Id.
Petitioner’s challenge proposes to “add a stationary brush release 59” from
Ohmstedt “to the Bissett/Kartman mounting block, proximate the lower end.” Pet.
15 (Ex. 1003, 2:37–49, Figs. 1, 2). Therefore, Petitioner proposes modifying the
Bissett/Kartman mounting block by adding the brush release of Ohmstedt to the
lower end of the Bissett/Kartman mounting block, not by adding brush box 13 of
Ohmstedt to the Bissett/Kartman mounting block. See id. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.
c. Patent Owner’s Arguments That the Combination Would
Not Result in the Claimed Invention
Patent Owner argues that the proposed combination of Ohmstedt with
Bissett and Kartman would not result in the claimed invention. PO Resp. 40. We
address Patent Owner’s arguments in turn.
First, Patent Owner argues that the proposed Bissett/Kartman mounting
block would not “affix” the brush holder component in place, and, thus, does not
meet the construction of “mounting block,” “a base for affixing to another
structure.” PO Resp. 40–41. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that if the
clamping action of Kartman’s detachable connecting means 42 is not incorporated
into Bissett’s mounting block, then nothing would “affix” the brush holder
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

24

component in place, and it would be ejected from the flat bar at 72 inches per
second. PO Resp. 41 (Ex. 2019 ¶ 114).
In response, Petitioner identifies that Bissett’s mounting block does, in fact,
“affix” the brush holder because Bissett discloses that its brush assembly
comprises “L-shaped member 20, the long side of which is bifurcated and modified
with suitable shoulders so as to slide into a securely held position relative to
dovetails 18.” Pet. Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:68–72) (emphasis added). In view
of this disclosure in Bissett, we are not persuaded that Bissett’s mounting block
does not affix the brush holder.
Second, Patent Owner argues that the proposed Bissett/Kartman mounting
block would not practice the claimed “mounting block” limitation because Bissett
teaches away from the clamping action taught in Kartman, as Bissett teaches
compliance with the “one hand rule.” PO Resp. 44. As discussed above, we are
not persuaded that the Bissett disclosure requires compliance with the so-called
“one hand rule.” Furthermore, Patent Owner argues that Kartman’s detachable
connecting means 42 operates by lifting clamp bar 46, sliding the brush holder into
position, and tightening cap screws 47. PO Resp. 44–45. Patent Owner argues
that the upward and downward motion of clamp bar 46 “is not ‘fixed,’ and thus
[Petitioner’s] proposed apparatus lacks a ‘mounting block.’” Id. at 45. Contrary to
Patent Owner’s arguments, we determine that Kartman teaches that tightening cap
screws 47 secures the brush holder into position, and, thus, serves as a “a base for
affixing to another structure.” Ex. 1004, 3:62–4:31 (“cap screws 47 may be
tightened to a clamp position applying a compressive force to the clamp bar”),
5:1619 (“The cap screws 47 are then tightened causing the clamp bar 46 to
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

25

compressively engage the rear channel 48 and lock it into position against the
mounting surface 14.”).
Third, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s proposed combination would
not satisfy the “removably mounting” limitation under Patent Owner’s proposed
construction of the term. PO Resp. 45. As discussed above, we do not adopt
Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the term “removably mounting”; thus,
Patent Owner’s argument is moot.
d. Claim 5
Claim 5 recites that the “mounting block includes a spring that applies
spring force against at least a portion of the brush holder component.”
PO Resp. 46. Petitioner relies upon the “spring [] lead receptacle 32” of the
mounting block disclosed in Bissett as applying a force against at least a portion of
the brush holder, namely, knife-edge clip 30 of the brush holder. Pet. 19–20
(citing Ex. 1005, 2:12–15, Fig. 4).
Patent Owner argues that the proposed Bissett/Kartman mounting block does
not meet the limitations of claim 5 because lead receptacle 32 is not part of
Bissett’s mounting block. PO Resp. 47. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion,
Petitioner argues that “one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
modified Bissett/Kartman mounting block includes a spring (lead receptacle 32).”
Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:12–15, Fig. 4). Furthermore, as Petitioner points out,
the position of “spring lead receptacle 32” is a mere design choice and its position
relative to dovetails 18 does not change the overall shape of Bissett’s mounting
structure. Pet. Reply 12 (citing Ex. 1013, 90:14–20). We determine that
positioning spring lead receptacle 32 on the Bissett/Kartman mounting block is a
matter of design choice because its placement there would not alter the operation
of the modified mounting block. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975)
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

26

(holding that the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring
device was an obvious matter of design choice within the skill in the art).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to
claim 5.
e. Claims 7, 13, and 17
Claims 7, 13, and 17 prohibit the “mounting block” from extending through
a plane defined by a planar surface of the base on which the mounting block is
mounted. Patent Owner argues that bolts 16 in the Bissett mounting block extend
completely through the base of frame 4 and, thus, fail to meet the limitations of
claims 7, 13, and 17. PO Resp. 47–48.
Petitioner counters that dovetails 18 in Bissett are positioned entirely on one
side of base 4. Pet. Reply 12. Petitioner further argues that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood that, rather than using a shank extending
from the head, Bissett’s dovetails 18 could have been created with screws or bolts
that engage threads in the heads. Id. We agree that one of ordinary skill in the art
could have readily modified dovetails 18 in Bissett to comply with the limitations
in claims 7, 13, and 17. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s
arguments with respect to claims 7, 13, and 17.
f. Claim 8
Claim 8 recites that the “mounting block includes a portion that is movable
relative to the remainder of the mounting block.” Petitioner argues that one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand to modify crosspiece 40 in Bissett to be
located on the mounting block to provide a moveable portion of the mounting
block. Pet. 21.
Patent Owner argues that moving Bissett’s crosspiece 40 to the mounting
block would “create substantial design difficulties.” PO Resp. 51. As Petitioner
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

27

points out, Patent Owner, however, fails to identify any of these design difficulties.
Pet. Reply 13. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s proposed
combination fails to teach the claimed moveable portion.
g. Remaining Claim Elements
As for the remaining elements recited in claims 1–24, which were not
disputed by Patent Owner, we also determine that these claim elements would have
been obvious in view of Bissett, Kartman, and Ohmstedt according to the
comparisons between the cited art disclosures presented in the Petition and the
claim limitations. See Pet. 14–27.
5. Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness
Factual inquiries for an obviousness determination include secondary
considerations based on evaluation and crediting of objective evidence of
nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966).
Notwithstanding what the teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one
with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’018 patent’s invention, the totality
of the evidence submitted, including objective evidence of nonobviousness, may
lead to a conclusion that the claimed invention would not have been obvious to one
with ordinary skill in the art. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–1472 (Fed. Cir.
1984). Secondary considerations may include any of the following: long-felt but
unsolved needs, failure of others, unexpected results, commercial success, copying,
licensing, and praise. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Patent Owner argues that
numerous objective indicia demonstrate the non-obviousness of its claimed
invention. PO Resp. 52.
We note that it is not sufficient that a product or its use merely be within the
scope of a claim in order for objective evidence of nonobviousness tied to that
product to be given substantial weight. There must also be a causal relationship,
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

28

termed a “nexus,” between the evidence and the claimed invention. Merck & Co.
v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A nexus is
required in order to establish that the evidence relied upon traces its basis to a
novel element in the claim, not to something in the prior art. Institut Pasteur &
Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v. Focarino, 738 F.3d 1337, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
2013). Objective evidence that results from something that is not “both claimed
and novel in the claim,” lacks a nexus to the merits of the invention. In re Kao,
639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
All types of objective evidence of nonobviousness must be shown to have
nexus. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (nexus generally); In
re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (commercial success); Wm. Wrigley
Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(copying); Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (long-felt
need); Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(praise). The stronger the showing of nexus, the greater the weight accorded the
objective evidence of nonobviousness. See Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins &
Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 306 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017
(1986).
a. Long Felt Need
Patent Owner argues that nearly 27 years passed from the date that Bissett
and Ohmstedt were known and readily available, but there is no evidence anybody
combined Ohmstedt’s brush catch with Bissett. PO Resp. 53. Patent Owner
further states that the substantial intervening time between the prior art’s teaching
and the ’018 patent speaks volumes to the nonobviousness of the claims at issue.
Id.
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

29

Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, the simple passage of time between
the prior art and the reduction to practice of the claimed invention is not alone
sufficient objective evidence of nonobviousness. To establish evidence of a long
felt but unresolved need, a patent owner must show that there was a persistent
problem that was recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 539 (CCPA 1967). The problem must not have been
solved previously by another, and the claimed invention must, in fact, satisfy the
long-felt need. See Newell Co. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 768 (Fed. Cir.
1988).
Patent Owner fails to establish that a persistent problem was recognized by
those of skill in the brush assembly art or that the problem was satisfied by Patent
Owner’s claimed invention. Patent Owner merely alleges that it introduced its
EASYchange holder product into the market in 2002. See PO Resp. 53. Patent
Owner fails to offer sufficient evidence that its EASYchange holder product
satisfied a persistent problem in the market.
For the foregoing reasons, the objective evidence proffered by Patent Owner
is insufficient to establish a long-felt, but unmet, need.
b. Industry Praise
Patent Owner alleges that its EASYchange brush holder has received
substantial industry praise. PO Resp. 54. Specifically, Patent Owner cites to
materials which describe Patent Owner’s EASYchange brush holder as providing
brush replacement that is “easily and quickly accomplished” and that the “[w]ell
designed, removable brush holders greatly simplify brush replacement.” PO Resp.
54–55 (citing Exs. 2057, 2058, 2005 at 104) (emphasis omitted).
Patent Owner fails to establish sufficiently how alleged praise in the
materials cited relate to the novel elements of any of the challenged claims of the
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

30

’018 patent. In fact, the statements in the materials relied upon by Patent Owner
are general descriptions of the operator experience with the EASYchange brush
holder, but Patent Owner fails to tie any of this praise to elements of the claimed
invention. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that this “objective indicia of non-
obviousness [is] tied to the novel elements of the claim at issue.” Institut Pasteur,
738 F.3d at 1347; Kao, 639 F.3d at 1068.
For the foregoing reasons, the objective evidence proffered by Patent Owner
is insufficient to establish industry praise.
c. Copying
Patent Owner alleges that Petitioner copied the EASYchange brush holder
when it designed the competing brush holder product, the FC-101 holder. PO
Resp. 56–57. Specifically, Patent Owner alleges that its patent application
embodying the EASYchange brush holder was published in 2003 and the FC-101
holder did not enter the market until 2005. PO Resp. 56 (citing Ex. 2050 ¶ 24).
Patent Owner alleges that both products include a brush box, brush catch, a
beam, and a channel. PO Resp. 58. Patent Owner fails, however, to identify any
novel elements of the claimed invention that were copied by the FC-101 product.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that this “objective indicia of non-obviousness
[is] tied to the novel elements of the claim at issue.” Institut Pasteur, 738 F.3d at
1347; Kao, 639 F.3d at 1068.
For the foregoing reasons, the objective evidence proffered by Patent Owner
is insufficient to establish copying.
d. Commercial Success
Patent Owner alleges that its EASYchange brush holder has enjoyed
tremendous commercial success shown by the significant sales of the product.
PO Resp. 59 (citing Exs. 2050 ¶ 18, 2051). In support of its allegation of
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

31

commercial success, Patent Owner provides its sales figures for the EASYchange
brush holder since 2002. Ex. 2050 ¶ 18; Ex. 2051.
Evidence of commercial success “is only significant if there is a nexus
between the claimed invention and the commercial success.” Ormco Corp. v.
Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1311–12 (Fed. Cir. 2006). To establish a proper
nexus between a claimed invention and the commercial success of a product, a
patent owner must offer “proof that the sales [of the allegedly successful product]
were a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention—as
opposed to other economic and commercial factors unrelated to the quality of the
patented subject matter.” In re Huang, 100 F.3d at 140.
We determine that Patent Owner’s evidence of commercial success is
insufficient because Patent Owner fails to establish how its sales figures relate to
the overall market. Information solely on numbers of units sold is insufficient to
establish commercial success. In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 392
(Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Information solely on numbers of units sold is insufficient to
establish commercial success.”); see also In re Huang, 100 F.3d at 140 (“Declining
to find evidence of commercial success because ‘[a]though [the inventor’s]
affidavit certainly indicates that many units have been sold, it provides no
indication of whether this represents a substantial quantity in this market.’”).
In addition to failing to provide evidence of Patent Owner’s sales figures
relative to the overall market, Patent Owner also fails to provide evidence that the
sales of EASYchange product were a direct result of unique characteristics of he
claimed invention. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that this “objective indicia
of non-obviousness [is] tied to the novel elements of the claim at issue.” Institut
Pasteur, 738 F.3d at 1347; Kao, 639 F.3d at 1068. Therefore, we determine that
Patent Owner’s proffered evidence of commercial success is unpersuasive.
IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

32

For the foregoing reasons, the objective evidence proffered by Patent Owner
is insufficient to establish commercial success.
e. Conclusion Regarding Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness
We have considered the scope and content of the prior art; the differences
between the prior art and the challenged claims; the level of ordinary skill in the
art; and all of the objective indicia of nonobviousness asserted by Patent Owner.
See Graham, 383 U.S. at 18–19. We determine that the objective evidence
proffered by Patent Owner is insufficient to establish nonobviousness.

III. CONCLUSION
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–24 would have
been obvious over Bissett, Kartman, and Ohmstedt.

IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that claims 1–24 of the ’018 patent are unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties to the proceeding seeking
judicial review of this Final Written Decision must comply with the notice and
service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2013-00274
Patent 7,990,018 B2

33

PETITIONER:
Jason A. Engel (Lead Counsel)
Alan L. Barry (Backup Counsel)
Benjamin Weed (Backup Counsel)
K&L GATES LLP
Jason.engel@klgates.com
alan.barry@klgates.com
benjamin.weed.PTAB@klgates.com

PATENT OWNER:
W. Karl Renner (Lead Counsel)
Dorothy P. Whelan (Backup Counsel)
Mathias Samuel (Backup Counsel)
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
axf@fr.com
Whelan@fr.com
PTABInbound@fr.com
samuel@fr.com