In its Decision, the Board declined to institute inter partes review of any challenged claim of the ‘453 patent. In particular, the Petition was denied because the Board determined there was not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on any of the asserted grounds of unpatentability raised with respect to claims 30 and 33.
The ‘453 patent relates to a bowfishing bow and arrow. In particular, the ‘453 patent discloses a bowfishing arrow configured to prevent its tether line from becoming tangled with the bow string during release and to allow for the line to be tethered to a rear portion of the arrow during flight.
Petitioner had proposed express constructions for various claim terms. Nonetheless, the Board found that such terms did not require express construction because, for example, their plain meaning was clear. Petitioner had also implicitly proposed a construction for terms that would cause a claim to encompass a slingshot with a handle and elastic bands, but the Board held that this implicitly proposed construction was not reasonable in light of the specification (which, for example, did not mention slingshots).
Petitioner asserted that claims 30 and 33 of the ‘453 patent would have been obvious in view of Feldman taken in combination with either Gannon or Broussard. In doing so, Petitioner contended that Patent Owner had admitted during reexamination that sling 10 of Feldman was a bowfishing bow. The Board disagreed with this assertion, however, pointing out that this alleged admission constituted a statement made by the examiner, not Patent Owner. Because Feldman did not disclose the recitation in claim 30 of “a bow with a handle and a bowstring,” the Board concluded that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claims 30 and 33 as having been obvious over Feldman in view of Gannon or Broussard.
Petitioner further asserted that claims 30 and 33 would have been obvious over Bear Archery in view of Gannon or Broussard. Nonetheless, the Board found that in Bear Archery, unlike in the subject ‘453 patent, rearward movement of the ring was ultimately interrupted by the tension of the line segment rather than by a stop mounted to a rear portion of the arrow. The Board also concluded that it would have been merely a matter of routine skill to substitute Gannon’s slide stop or the slide stop from Broussard for the slide stop in the Bear Archery Catalogs. Moreover, the Board was not persuaded by Petitioner’s brief arguments for making either of these combinations. Thus, the Board denied institution of the requested inter partes review.
Bear Archery, Inc. v. AMS, LLC, IPR2014-00700
Paper 9: Decision Denying Inter Partes Review
Dated: August 15, 2014
Patent 6,517,453
Before: William V. Saindon, Philip J. Hoffman, and Michael J. Fitzpatrick
Written by: Fitzpatrick
Related Proceedings: AMS, LLC v. Bear Archery, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-119 (W.D. Wis.); Ex Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/012,984 (which had resulted in certificate US 6,517,453)