Opinion ID: 4243797
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denney

Text: Denney is directed to “an all terrain, four-wheeled vehicle frame for carrying at least two passengers in a sideby-side riding configuration, comprising a rigid, tubular frame body.” Denney, at Abstract. The invention of Denney “provides for a forward passenger compartment having structural support members for carrying a pair of seats for the side-by-side passengers” and “a rearward engine compartment configured for receiving an engine, power train, and transmission for driving wheels of the vehicle.” Id. The invention in Denney “includes a vertical, load-bearing truss member extending generally along a longitudinal, central axis of the vehicle within the passenger compartment, the truss member forming a load-bearing structural member between the pair of seats.” Id. Denney’s specification describes the state of the art at the time of the invention disclosed therein, and the tradeoffs between certain known vehicle designs. The specification explains that ATVs “typically have a short wheelbase which gives the ATV increased maneuverability and transportability over their counterpart recreational vehicles such as sandrails or a dune buggies [sic].” Id. col. 1, ll. 17–20 (emphasis added). But, “[h]istorically, 6 POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC. v. ARCTIC CAT, INC. ATVs with a shorter wheelbase require that the ATV occupancy area be raised to accommodate the decreased amount of space between the wheels. By raising the occupancy area, the center of gravity of the ATV is also raised.” Id. col. 1, ll. 22–26 (emphasis added). “The result of a higher center of gravity is a decrease in vehicle stability and subsequent increased risk of rollovers.” Id. col. 1, ll. 26–28 (emphasis added). On the other hand, recreational vehicles such as dune buggies “with wider wheelbases are able to accommodate vehicle occupants lower in the vehicle plane and hence have a lower center of gravity.” Id. col. 1, ll. 30–32 (emphasis added). But “the wider wheelbase decreases the vehicles [sic] maneuverability as well as the ability to transport the recreational vehicle in the back of a standard pick up truck bed.” Id. col. 1, ll. 34–36 (emphasis added). Denney therefore explains that “[i]t would be advantageous to combine the attractive features of the lower center of gravity vehicles with the attractive features of the shorter wheelbase . . . vehicles such that the resultant ATV has the increased maneuverability and transportability of a smaller ATV and the lower center of gravity and resultant enhanced stability of the vehicles with the wider wheelbases.” Id. col. 1, ll. 37–43. The invention described in Denney purports to achieve this desired combination, but purportedly does so in a two-wheel drive system. See id. col. 4, ll. 29–35 (describing the power train giving the rear wheels additional movement through the driving axle). It is undisputed that Denney lacks features claimed in the ’405 patent that relate to front-wheel drive. See CrossAppellant Br. 17. It is also undisputed that Denney does not disclose the additional limitations recited in claims 16–19 of the ’405 patent. See id. at 23–25. POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC. v. ARCTIC CAT, INC. 7