Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01586/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01586-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Permobil, Inc.
Appellee
Pride Mobility Products Corporation
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

PERMOBIL, INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2015-1585, 2015-1586

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 

IPR2013-00407, IPR2013-00411.

______________________ 

Decided: April 5, 2016

______________________ 

 GARY H. LEVIN, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Philadelphia, 

PA, argued for appellant. Also represented by HAROLD H.

FULLMER, DANIEL J. GOETTLE. 

 AMY K. WIGMORE, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and 

Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also 

represented by OWEN K. ALLEN, HEATH BROOKS, DAVID 

LANGDON CAVANAUGH, RICHARD ANTHONY CRUDO. 

______________________ 

Before REYNA, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-1586 Document: 22-2 Page: 1 Filed: 04/05/2016
2 PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP. v. PERMOBIL, INC. 

TARANTO, Circuit Judge. 

Pride Mobility Products Corp. owns U.S. Patent Nos. 

8,408,598 and 8,408,343, which disclose and claim wheelchairs designed to travel stably over obstacles. The 

Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal 

Board, acting through a panel under authority delegated 

by the Director, instituted inter partes reviews of the ’598 

and ’343 patents on petitions filed by Permobil, Inc. under 

35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq. After reviewing the patents, the 

Board cancelled all claims of both patents for obviousness. 

Permobil, Inc. v. Pride Mobility Prods. Corp., IPR2013-

407, 2014 WL 7405755 (PTAB Dec. 31, 2014) (’598 Decision); Permobil, Inc. v. Pride Mobility Prods. Corp., 

IPR2013-411, 2014 WL 7405756 (PTAB Dec. 31, 2014)

(’343 Decision). Pride Mobility’s appeal centers on two 

issues: (1) whether the Board misconstrued claim 7 of the 

’343 patent, which requires a “substantially planar” 

mounting plate “oriented perpendicular” to the axis of the 

claimed wheelchair’s drive wheel; and (2), as to all other 

claims, whether the Board erred in concluding that a 

relevant skilled artisan would have been motivated to

make the claimed wheelchair by lowering the position of a 

pivot in a prior-art wheelchair. We reverse the Board’s 

construction and cancellation of claim 7 of the ’343 patent. 

As to the other claims, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Pride Mobility and Permobil compete for sales of 

power wheelchairs. The ’598 and ’343 patents disclose 

wheelchairs that raise their front wheels (called caster 

wheels) in response to torque from the chairs’ motors,

enhancing the capacity of the chairs to travel stably over 

obstacles. ’598 patent, col. 2, line 55, through col. 3, line 

3; ’343 patent, col. 2, lines 16–31. Figure 2 of the ’598 

patent and Figure 3B of the ’343 patent are illustrative:

Case: 15-1586 Document: 22-2 Page: 2 Filed: 04/05/2016
Case: 15-1586 Document: 22-2 Page: 3 Filed: 04/05/2016
4 PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP. v. PERMOBIL, INC. 

The ’343 patent discloses a chair that is similar in relevant respects. See ’343 patent, Figs. 1, 3A, 3B, & 5; id., 

col. 7, line 51, through col. 8, line 8. Figure 3B shows 

portions of the ’343 patent’s chair relevant to the issue 

presented by claim 7 of that patent. A part of each of a 

left and right drive assembly (not numbered in Figure 3B) 

is a mounting plate (number 56 in other Figures), a 

portion of which is shown in Figure 3B as 57b. See id., 

col. 7, lines 60–63; id., col. 8, lines 27–32. That part of the

mounting plate contains a pivot 29. The plate connects at 

its top to the roughly horizontal (slightly bent) front arm

(numbered 60 in other Figures), which in turn connects to 

a caster wheel 66. Id., col. 8, lines 27–35, 60–62; id., col. 

11, lines 21–28. As in the ’598 patent’s chair, the relevant 

pivot of the ’343 patent’s chair is positioned below a line 

drawn between the chair’s drive-wheel axis A-DW and the 

front-caster-wheel axis (not numbered). 

Claim 1 of the ’343 patent, representative of most of 

the claims at issue, reads: 

1. A wheelchair comprising:

a frame;

a drive wheel defining a drive wheel axis a mounting plate pivotally coupled to the frame at a pivot axis, the pivot axis being positioned forward 

of the drive wheel axis; a mounting plate pivotally coupled to the frame at a pivot axis, the pivot axis being positioned forward of the drive 

wheel axis;

a drive operatively coupled to the drive wheel and 

affixed to the mounting plate; 

a forward-extending front arm rigidly extending 

from the mounting plate such that the mounting 

plate, drive, and front arm are together configured to pivot about the pivot axis;

Case: 15-1586 Document: 22-2 Page: 4 Filed: 04/05/2016
PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP. v. PERMOBIL, INC. 5

a front wheel rotatably coupled to the front arm, 

the front wheel defining a front wheel axis, 

wherein a vertical position of the pivot axis with 

respect to the ground plane is spaced from and 

positioned relatively below a line drawn between 

the drive wheel axis and the front wheel axis

when the drive wheels and front wheels are on 

level ground;

whereby motor torque biases the front wheel. 

Id., col. 14, line 58, through col. 15, line 12 (emphasis 

added). Claim 7 of the ’343 patent, which depends on 

claim 1, adds:

wherein the mounting plate is substantially planar and is oriented perpendicular to the drive 

wheel axis.

Id., col. 16, lines 10–12.

Permobil filed petitions for inter partes review of the 

’598 and ’343 patents under 35 U.S.C. § 311(a). Permobil 

argued that the wheelchairs of all claims of the ’598 

patent would have been obvious over WO 02/34190 to

Goertzen in view of, among other references, U.S. Patent 

No. 6,454,286 to Hosino and U.S. Patent No. 6,129,165 to 

Schaffner. Permobil also argued that the wheelchairs of 

all claims of the ’343 patent would have been obvious over 

Goertzen in view of, among other references, Hosino and 

U.S. Patent Application No. 03/0205420 to Mulhern. In 

its preliminary responses under 35 U.S.C. § 313, Pride 

Mobility argued that Permobil had failed to show a motivation to make the asserted combinations of references.

The primary reference, Goertzen, discloses a wheelchair for traversing obstacles such as curbs. The 

Goertzen chair has a pivot arm connected to the chair’s 

frame by a pivot-mounting structure, such that the pivot

connecting to the frame is positioned above a straight line 

drawn between the drive-wheel and front-caster-wheel 

Case: 15-1586 Document: 22-2 Page: 5 Filed: 04/05/2016
6 PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP. v. PERMOBIL, INC. 

axes. Hosino, Mulhern, and Schaffner also disclose 

wheelchairs equipped for riding over uneven terrain. 

Significantly, both Hosino and Mulhern disclose chairs 

with pivots or pivot-like elements located below a line 

drawn between their drive-wheel and front-caster-wheel 

axes. Schaffner discloses a chair with a drive-wheel axis 

and housing, the housing enclosing a motor and transmission. 

The Board, exercising the PTO Director’s authority by 

regulatory delegation, 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), instituted 

reviews of all claims of both patents under 35 U.S.C. 

§ 314(a). As to the ’598 patent, the Board concluded that 

Permobil had established a reasonable likelihood that the 

wheelchairs of claims 1, 4–8, and 11–13 would have been 

obvious over Goertzen and Hosino—combining the two by 

using Hosino’s low pivot point to motivate the lowering of 

the pivot point in Goertzen. Using the same core reasoning as to the pivot-point location, the Board also concluded that Permobil had established a reasonable likelihood 

that the wheelchairs of claims 2, 3, 9, and 10 would have 

been obvious over Goertzen, Hosino, and Schaffner. As to 

the ’343 patent, the Board concluded, again for similar 

reasons, that Permobil had established a reasonable 

likelihood that the wheelchairs of all of that patent’s

claims would have been obvious over Goertzen and Hosino

and, separately, that the wheelchairs of claims 1 and 4–10 

would have been obvious over Goertzen and Mulhern. 

After the reviews were instituted, the Board began 

conducting the reviews under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b)(4) & 

316(c). Pride Mobility filed responses as authorized by 37 

C.F.R. § 42.120. In reliance on a declaration from its 

expert, Dr. Curran, Pride Mobility argued that a skilled 

artisan would have recognized that lowering the pivot in 

the Goertzen chair would reduce that chair’s stability. 

Dr. Curran discussed various options that a skilled artisan might consider to reduce the instability caused by 

lowering Goertzen’s pivot, but he concluded that each of 

Case: 15-1586 Document: 22-2 Page: 6 Filed: 04/05/2016
PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP. v. PERMOBIL, INC. 7

those options would compromise the chair’s performance. 

Permobil, in a reply implicitly authorized by 37 C.F.R. 

§§ 42.23, 42.24(c)(1), maintained that there were ways to 

adjust the characteristics of the chair to maintain its 

stability, citing, among other things, deposition testimony 

of Permobil’s expert, Dr. Richter. 

The Board cancelled all claims of both patents in its

final written decisions under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). As to the 

’598 patent, the Board first determined that the wheelchairs of claims 1, 4–8, and 11–13 would have been obvious over Goertzen and Hosino. ’598 Decision, at *12. In 

particular, the Board found that Permobil’s expert, Dr. 

Richter, had testified about how lowering the pivot point 

in the Goertzen chair would introduce a stability problem 

but that a skilled artisan “would have known to compensate for the reduction in stability” in various ways. Id. at 

*10 (citing J.A. 990–92). It also found that the advantage 

of using a low pivot axis taught in Hosino applied equally 

to the chair disclosed in Goertzen, despite physical differences between the two chairs and different principal uses. 

Id. at *11. On those bases, the Board found that a skilled 

artisan would have looked to Hosino and modified 

Goertzen accordingly. Id. The Board also concluded that 

the wheelchairs of claims 2, 3, 9, and 10 of the ’598 patent 

would have been obvious over Goertzen, Hosino, and 

Schaffner. Id. at *12–15. 

As to the ’343 patent, the Board first construed language in claim 7—which requires a mounting plate that 

“is substantially planar and is oriented perpendicular to 

the drive wheel axis,” ’343 patent, col. 16, lines 10–12—as 

covering an arrangement in which the drive-wheel axis is, 

in common-sense and ordinary geometric terms, parallel 

to the planar surface of a substantially planar mounting 

plate. The Board so concluded by relying on the patent’s 

description of Schaffner as showing a drive-wheel axis 

that is perpendicular to a motor—a motor whose longitudinal axis (not any planar surface) was perpendicular to 

Case: 15-1586 Document: 22-2 Page: 7 Filed: 04/05/2016
8 PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP. v. PERMOBIL, INC. 

the drive-wheel axis. The Board concluded that the claim 

language, though referring to a substantially planar 

mounting plate, is “broad enough to encompass not only 

the orientation of mounting plate 56 relative to drive 

wheel axis A-DW, but also the orientation of motor 80 

relative to the drive wheel axis 24, as depicted in Figure 9 

of [Schaffner].” ’343 Decision, at *6. On that basis the 

Board found that claim 7 reads on the substantially 

planar mounting plate 308 and drive-wheel axis 311 of 

Figure 3 of Goertzen: 

The Board so found because, although the planar surface 

of Goertzen’s mounting plate 308 plainly was not perpendicular to the drive-wheel axis 311, one edge of the roughly rectangular flat plate (perhaps the longer edge), like 

the longitudinal axis of Schaffner’s motor, was perpendicular to the drive-wheel axis. Id. at *13. 

The Board ultimately concluded that the wheelchairs 

of claims 1–10 of the ’343 patent would have been obvious 

over Goertzen and Hosino, relying specifically on the justdescribed claim construction for claim 7 and otherwise 

relying on the same reasons that it determined that the 

relevant claims of the ’598 patent failed for obviousness

over the same references. Id. at *7–13. It also concluded 

that the wheelchairs of claims 1 and 4–10 of the ’343 

FIG. 3 

(GOERTZEN) 

Case: 15-1586 Document: 22-2 Page: 8 Filed: 04/05/2016
PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP. v. PERMOBIL, INC. 9

patent would have been obvious over Goertzen and Mulhern. Id. at *13–15. 

Pride Mobility appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 319, challenging the Board’s construction of claim 7 of the ’343 

patent and the cancellation of the ’598 and ’343 patents’ 

claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(4)(A).

DISCUSSION

 “This court reviews Board decisions using the standard set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 

U.S.C. § 706.” In re Sullivan, 362 F.3d 1324, 1326 (Fed. 

Cir. 2004) (citing Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 154 

(1999)); see Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee, 797 F.3d 1318, 

1323 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (inter partes review); Belden Inc. v. 

Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (inter 

partes review subject to various APA requirements). 

Under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (E), the Board’s actions here 

are to be set aside if “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” or 

“unsupported by substantial evidence.” See Sullivan, 362 

F.3d at 1326 (citing In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1382 

(Fed. Cir. 2002)); Brief for Intervenor—Director of the 

U.S. Pat. & Trademark Office at 23–24, Magnum Oil 

Tools Int’l, Ltd., No. 2015-1300 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2015), 

2015 WL 5920112, at *23–24 (inter partes review). 

Two types of issues are presented here. Regarding 

claim construction, “[t]here being no dispute here about 

findings or evidence of facts extrinsic to the patent, 

whether facts about outside-the-patent understandings of 

technical words or other facts, we conduct a de novo 

review of the Board’s determination of the broadest 

reasonable interpretation of the claim language.” 

Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O., 806 

F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Such de novo review 

accords with the de novo review of ordinary judicial claim 

Case: 15-1586 Document: 22-2 Page: 9 Filed: 04/05/2016
10 PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP. v. PERMOBIL, INC. 

construction where, as here, no facts are in dispute. See 

Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 

841 (2015); Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 

796 F.3d 1312, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Regarding obviousness, we review de novo the ultimate determination of 

obviousness and compliance with legal standards, and we 

review underlying factual findings for substantial evidence. Belden, 805 F.3d at 1073.

A 

We first review the Board’s construction and cancellation of claim 7 of the ’343 patent. Claim 7 requires a 

“mounting plate [that] is substantially planar and is 

oriented perpendicular to the drive wheel axis.” ’343 

patent, col. 16, lines 10–12. It is unreasonable to read 

that straightforward language as meaning anything other 

than that the drive-wheel axis is perpendicular to the 

surface of the mounting plate that makes the plate substantially planar. In terms of simple geometry, if the 

plate were translated in space (without rotation) so that it 

intersected the axis, the axis would intersect the substantially planar surface at a single point (not more) and 

make a right angle. 

The claim language says two things about the plate: it 

must be substantially planar, and it must be oriented 

perpendicular to the drive-wheel axis. The “oriented” 

term allows the plate and axis not to be touching: it 

requires that their placement in space must be such that, 

if translated in space without rotation, they would be 

perpendicular. With the axis idealized as a line, perpendicularity in the ordinary geometric sense relevant here 

requires that the axis make a right angle with either an 

essentially one-dimensional feature (a line or curve) or an 

essentially two-dimensional feature (a plane or surface) of 

the plate: lines are not “perpendicular” to a threedimensional object in any other ordinary geometric sense. 

And the claim tells us exactly what that feature of the 

Case: 15-1586 Document: 22-2 Page: 10 Filed: 04/05/2016
PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP. v. PERMOBIL, INC. 11

three-dimensional plate is: it is the surface that makes 

the plate substantially planar. The claim identifies no 

other feature of the plate. The phrase “oriented perpendicular to the drive wheel axis” must be read to mean that 

the drive-wheel axis is perpendicular to the mounting 

plate’s substantially planar surface. We do not see how 

the claim language can mean anything else without 

obvious strain.

The specification reinforces this reading. In a first 

embodiment, the specification says that “[m]ounting plate 

56 preferably is planar and oriented perpendicular to the 

rotational axis C-DW of drive wheels 58.” Id., col. 8, lines 

27–29. In the same passage, it points to Figures 3A, 3B, 

4A, and 4B as “best show[ing]” the components of mounting plate 56, including its projection 57b. Id., col. 8, lines 

29–32. Each of those figures shows projection 57b as 

having a planar surface oriented perpendicularly to the 

drive-wheel axis (A-DW) in the ordinary geometric sense. 

The specification likewise says that mounting plate 56 (of 

which 57b is a part) in a second embodiment “preferably

is planar and oriented perpendicular to rotational axis CDW of drive wheels 58′,” pointing to Figures 7A and 7B. 

Id., col. 13, lines 19–23. Both of those figures show the 

axis of the drive wheel oriented perpendicularly to the 

planar surface of the mounting plate. The specification 

nowhere describes or depicts the drive-wheel axis as 

oriented other than perpendicular to the planar surface of 

the mounting plate in the ordinary geometric sense. 

The Board’s sole basis for its claim construction does 

not reasonably support a departure from what the claim 

language and specification so clearly mean. The ’343 

patent’s specification describes Schaffner’s motor as

having an orientation “perpendicular to [Schaffner’s]

drive wheel axis.” Id., col. 9, lines 20–25. That description plainly refers to perpendicularity of the drive-wheel 

axis to a one-dimensional feature of Schaffner’s motor, 

namely, its longitudinal axis (which runs front to back in 

Case: 15-1586 Document: 22-2 Page: 11 Filed: 04/05/2016
12 PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP. v. PERMOBIL, INC. 

the wheelchair): the description refers to Schaffner as 

having a “longitudinally mounted motor[ ]” and “requiring 

a right-angle gearbox” to translate the direction of the 

motor’s motion to the drive-wheel axis. Id., col. 9, lines 

21–26. Nothing in the reference to Schaffner refers to any 

two-dimensional feature (plane or surface) of the motor as 

perpendicular to the drive-wheel axis. In contrast, what 

claim 7 by its terms refers to is precisely a twodimensional feature—the surface that makes the plate 

substantially planar—and not any longitudinal axis or 

other one-dimensional feature of the plate. Thus, the 

reference to perpendicularity of the Schaffner motor has a 

straightforward, ordinary-geometry meaning that has no 

significant bearing on the distinct but equally straightforward, ordinary-geometry meaning of perpendicularity 

in claim 7. Claim 7 requires that the mounting plate’s 

substantially planar surface be oriented perpendicularly 

to the drive-wheel axis.

Under that construction, the Board’s cancellation of 

claim 7 must be reversed. The sole prior-art reference 

that the Board (and Permobil) identified for this element 

is Goertzen. The pertinent component of Goertzen is 

substantially planar, but it is indisputably not perpendicular to the drive-wheel axis in the ordinary sense required 

by claim 7, and the Board did not find otherwise. The 

Goertzen plate, if translated without rotation to intersect 

the drive-wheel axis, would not intersect at a single point 

and make a right angle: indeed, the axis would likely lie 

flat on the plate. Accordingly, there is no evidence of the 

claim 7 element in the relied-on prior art. Because there 

is no other Board ruling or properly preserved argument 

addressed to this element, we reverse the cancellation of 

claim 7. 

B 

As to all of the other claims at issue, we affirm the 

Board’s decision. The Board found that a relevant skilled 

Case: 15-1586 Document: 22-2 Page: 12 Filed: 04/05/2016
PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP. v. PERMOBIL, INC. 13

artisan would have been motivated to lower the pivot axis

in the Goertzen chair in the way shown in Hosino. Pride 

Mobility challenges that finding, but it does not dispute 

that the finding, if sustained, suffices to support all of the 

rejections except for claim 7 of the ’343 patent. We sustain the Board’s finding.

The Board had sufficient evidence to find that lowering the pivot axis “enables a front caster wheel to move 

‘rear upward’ and thereby more easily rise up and overcome [an] obstacle” such as a curb. ’598 Decision at *11; 

see also id. at *9; ’343 Decision at *11, *12; J.A. 338–39, ¶ 

38; J.A. 966, 985. Based on its expert’s evidence, however, Pride Mobility argues that a relevant skilled artisan 

would have recognized that obtaining the obstacleclimbing advantage would have come at the cost of introducing instability problems in the Goertzen chair and 

that adjustments of other components of the chair to 

compensate for instability would have introduced their 

own problems. But we read the Board as having found, 

and as reasonably understanding Dr. Richter to have 

testified, that a relevant skilled artisan would have 

“known to compensate for” the instability problem in ways 

that preserved the acceptability of the wheelchair. See 

’598 Decision at *10; ’343 Decision at *12; J.A. 985–92. 

We need not go beyond saying that the findings and 

evidence, so understood, are sufficient to support the 

Board’s rejection of Pride Mobility’s argument against a 

skilled artisan’s having had a reason to make the 

Goertzen-Hosino combination.

CONCLUSION

We reverse the Board’s construction and cancellation 

of claim 7 of the ’343 patent. We affirm the Board’s 

cancellation of all other claims at issue in the ’598 and 

’343 patents.

No costs. 

Case: 15-1586 Document: 22-2 Page: 13 Filed: 04/05/2016
14 PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP. v. PERMOBIL, INC. 

REVERSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART

Case: 15-1586 Document: 22-2 Page: 14 Filed: 04/05/2016