US 10751218

I'll search the USPTO and CAFC sources for this specific patent number.

The patent details are confirmed by multiple sources. Let me run additional targeted searches to verify USPTO records and check specifically for any CAFC/litigation involving this patent number.

Let me do a final check specifically for any administrative or appellate proceedings naming this patent.

Summary: US Patent 10,751,218 B2 (patent number: 10751218)

Bibliographic data

Source: Google Patents (patents.google.com/patent/US10751218/en), Justia (patents.justia.com/patent/10751218), patents-review.com, and freepatentsonline.com — all consistent with one another.

Abstract (verbatim)

A sports goggle comprising a lens attached to a flexible frame and configured to be positioned over the user's eyes, the flexible frame comprising an outer surface that is oriented away from the user's face and an inner surface that generally conforms to the shape of the user's face, the inner surface completely or partially covered with a flexible liner, and one or more first apertures in the outer surface connected to one or more apertures in the inner surface by one or more channels to allow airflow through the frame to the flexible liner. The flexible liner may be made of foam, open-cell foam, another porous material, or other material that allows air to pass through it. The goggle may include a screen and/or a filter positioned near the first aperture, between the first aperture and the second aperture, or near the second aperture.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The patent has 17 claims; there are four independent claims (1, 7, 16, and 17):

• Claim 1 (sports goggle — core cooling concept). A goggle with a flexible frame (outer surface facing away from the face, inner surface shaped to the face), a lens held by the frame around its periphery, and a flexible liner on the inner surface that contacts the face. The frame has a first aperture on its outer surface and a second aperture on its inner surface, with the liner placed directly over (covering) the second aperture. A channel through the frame connects the two apertures so incoming air flows through the frame and is dispersed directly into the liner to cool the skin where the liner contacts it. The liner seals against the face and contacts at least the forehead, cheeks, and temples.

• Claim 7 (eye protection device — central raised frame portion). A frame with outer/inner surfaces that receives a lens around its periphery. The top of the frame has a single central raised portion between left and right top portions, joined to them by left/right angled joints, and rising vertically above the otherwise continuous profile of those portions. Like claim 1, it has a liner over a second aperture and a channel directing airflow into the liner. The angled joints themselves also contain one or more outer-surface apertures connected by channels to inner-surface apertures.

• Claim 16 (sports goggle — multiple vents on top and bottom). A flexible frame whose inner and outer surfaces are spaced apart by a "spaced apart region," with a lens, multiple first apertures, multiple second apertures (covered by the liner), and multiple channels each connecting a respective first aperture to a respective second aperture through the spaced-apart region. At least one aperture/channel set is on the top of the frame and at least one is on the bottom.

• Claim 17 (sports goggle — frame members in the spaced-apart region). Similar construction with inner/outer surfaces spaced apart, but adds frame members extending between the surfaces within the spaced-apart region, plus a lens, liner, a first aperture, a second aperture (covered by the liner), and a channel formed through the frame and through the space between the surfaces, connecting the apertures to deliver airflow into the liner.

In short, the invention routes outside air through dedicated channels in the goggle frame directly into the porous face-foam liner — rather than into the lens-to-eye space — to actively cool the skin areas the goggle seals against (forehead, cheeks, temples) without letting dust/irritants reach the eyes.

CAFC 2026 docket search result

No CAFC (or other appellate) proceeding involving patent 10751218 was found. Searches of CAFC 2026 docket coverage (WilmerHale Federal Circuit Patent Watch, A&O Shearman IP Blog, and general litigation/keyword searches for "10751218," "10,751,218," and "US10751218B2") returned no appeal, IPR, reexamination, or infringement action naming this patent. The patent appears in the cited-art lists of later 100% Speedlab design patents (e.g., D917606, D948599) but in no litigated or post-grant proceeding located.

Uncertainty notes

• I could not directly query the USPTO Patent Center/assignment database in these searches; bibliographic data above is corroborated by Google Patents, Justia, patents-review.com, and freepatentsonline.com, all of which agree.
• The absence of CAFC docket entries reflects only what the searches returned; absence of results is not definitive proof that no proceeding exists, but no such proceeding surfaced in any search.

I'll search multiple litigation databases and sources for any cases naming US Patent 10,751,218.

Initial searches returned no relevant cases. Let me query more specialized litigation databases and docket sources.

Litigation Search Results: US Patent 10,751,218 ("Air cooled goggle")

Result: No known litigation found

Based on targeted searches across litigation-focused sources (including Unified Patents-style litigation indexes, district court docket aggregators, PACER-monitoring sites, and general web searches for the exact identifiers "10751218", "10,751,218", and "US10751218B2"), no district court litigation, ITC proceeding, IPR/PGR, reexamination, or CAFC appeal naming US Patent 10,751,218 was located.

This finding is consistent with the earlier CAFC docket analysis performed for this patent (see prior sections), which likewise surfaced no appellate or post-grant proceeding naming the patent.

Specific checks performed

• Searches for "10751218" patent litigation, "US10751218" lawsuit, and "10,751,218" patent case docket returned no relevant results (only unrelated matters involving numerically similar patents — e.g., a Delaware case reporting patents 9,510,969 / 10,556,095 / 10,675,174, and a Samsung declaratory-judgment case citing 10,313,820 / 10,721,564 / 10,757,527; none of these involve 10751218).
• Searches pairing the patent number with the assignee ("100% Speedlab") returned no cases.
• No docket entry, complaint, notice of infringement, or PTAB filing citing 10,751,218 as an asserted or challenged patent appeared in any source retrieved.

Observations from the patent's own record (consistent with no litigation)

• The patent's USPTO legal-events history (per Google Patents) shows only prosecution milestones (final rejection 2019, notice of allowance 2020, grant August 25, 2020) and a maintenance fee payment in February 2024 — no assignment into litigation, no litigation-related code (e.g., "LITR" / "LITIGATION SEARCH" events) appears.
• The patent is cited as prior art/related art in later 100% Speedlab design patents (e.g., D917606, D948599) and in a 2025 third-party application (US20250082505A1, "Ventilated protective eyewear," Jorli Ricker) — but citation of a patent in a later application is not litigation.

Categorical answer requested

Caveats (stated plainly)

• This reflects only what the searched, publicly indexed sources returned as of the search date. Absence of results is not definitive proof that no proceeding exists (e.g., sealed filings, very recent complaints not yet indexed, or cases docketed only in PACER without public web indexing could be missed).
• To confirm with certainty, a direct query of PACER (nationwide party search for "100% Speedlab" and patent number 10,751,218), the USPTO Patent Center/PTAB (for IPR/PGR/reexam), and the ITC docket system would be the authoritative next steps — I could not directly query those subscription/gated systems in this session.

Bottom line: As of the available search results, no known litigation involving US Patent 10,751,218 exists, and I found no plaintiff(s), defendant(s), case number, jurisdiction, or filing date to report for any such matter.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. There are no Inter Partes Reviews, Post-Grant Reviews, or Covered Business Method reviews — pending, instituted, settled, or decided — against US Patent 10,751,218 B2. The USPTO Open Data Portal trial-proceeding ingest for this patent is empty, and targeted web searches (including "10751218" + IPR/PTAB, "US10751218" trial terms, "10,751,218" inter partes, and "100% Speedlab" IPR searches) surfaced no petition, no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, and no PTAB settlement involving this patent or any 100% Speedlab goggle patent. The defensive posture is therefore one of an untested patent: all 17 claims (including independent claims 1, 7, 16, and 17) remain in force exactly as granted, no claim has ever been canceled by the Board, and no petitioner or privy holds IPR estoppel against the patent owner.

No per-proceeding entries follow, because there are no proceedings to report. The sections below address the structural implications of that zero.

(No proceedings exist — no FWDs, judge panels, settlements, or CAFC appeals to report)

• Type: n/a — no IPR/PGR/CBM petition has been filed
• Filed: n/a
• Status: n/a — the ODP canonical list contains no AIA trial proceeding for 10751218; searches of PTAB decision databases, the Federal Circuit docket, and CourtListener found nothing naming this patent
• Judge panel: n/a
• Petition grounds: n/a
• Institution decision: n/a
• Final Written Decision: n/a
• Settlement / termination: n/a
• Appeal: n/a
• Defensive value: A defendant cannot cite any PTAB victory because none exists. Conversely, there is no estoppel and no claim-narrowing to work around — every validity question is open for litigation.

Strategic summary

Claim status — CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. Every claim of 10751218 is UNTESTED before the PTAB. None of claims 1–17 (independents 1, 7, 16, 17 and dependents 2–6, 8–15) has ever been challenged in an AIA trial, much less canceled or sustained in a Final Written Decision. The patent issued 2020-08-25, has been active for over five years, and its maintenance fee was paid in February 2024 — yet it has attracted no PTAB petition. That is a notable signal in both directions: for a patent owner, it suggests either the claims have not been commercially asserted in a way that triggers IPR responses, or accused infringers have chosen district-court invalidity defenses over PTAB petitions. For a defendant, it means the § 315(e)(2) estoppel landscape is completely clean — no petitioner has ever been barred, and no prior-art ground has been consumed. Whoever is now facing assertion can run any § 102/§ 103 ground, including art already considered during prosecution, without estoppel risk from an earlier IPR.

Estoppel landscape. Because there are zero proceedings, § 315(e)(2) estoppel binds no one. A defendant sued today retains the full arsenal: (1) it may file its own IPR petition if within the § 315(b) one-year bar measured from service of the complaint (the bar runs from service of an infringement complaint, not from patent grant — 10751218's 2020 grant date is irrelevant to the clock); and (2) it may raise invalidity in district court without any of the grounds having been "used up" in a prior PTAB proceeding. The only strategic caution is generic: if a defendant does file an IPR and loses on the merits, § 315(e)(2) would then bar it (and its privies) from re-litigating in district court any ground it raised or reasonably could have raised — so the decision to go to the PTAB versus district court should be made with that tradeoff in mind, not because of any existing estoppel.

Pattern signals. There are none pointing toward coordinated attack or defense. No repeat petitioner has filed serial IPRs against this patent or its family; no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents, RPX) appears in the record; and no post-grant or appellate history exists. The patent has, however, been prolific as a source of citations — later 100% Speedlab family members and design patents (e.g., D917606, D948590, D948599, and the continuation US10716708B2 / US11020276B1 family) cite it, and a 2023–2025 third-party application (Jorli Ricker's "Ventilated protective eyewear," US20250082505A1 / US12383431B2) cites it as prior art. That cited-by activity shows the patent is being used as a blocking reference against later applicants — a sign the claims are being taken seriously as prior art — but it has not translated into any validity challenge.

Cross-proceeding picture. The bottom line is simple: this is a virgin patent before the PTAB. That cuts against any narrative that the patent is "hardened" by surviving IPRs — it has survived nothing — and it equally forecloses any argument that "claims X are dead." For a defendant, the honest read is that the patent is vulnerable in the sense of being untested, not strong in the sense of having been battle-proven: the only merits determinations on these claims came from the examiner during prosecution (application 13/750,093, allowed April 2020 after two rejections), and no independent tribunal has ever reviewed the scope of the "airflow directly into the liner" limitation of claims 1, 7, 16, and 17.

Recommended next steps

• No PTAB activity exists — say so plainly, because the absence is itself the signal. A patent issued in 2020 that has been maintained and cited as blocking prior art, yet has drawn zero IPR petitions in five years, typically means one of three things: (a) the patent owner has not been asserting it against deep-pocketed targets in a way that invites IPRs; (b) accused infringers have been settling or litigating validity in district court instead; or (c) the accused products have been designed around the narrow "disperse airflow directly into the flexible liner" and "single central raised portion" limitations. Before advising a client, determine which of these is true — check whether 100% Speedlab has filed infringement suits on this patent or its continuation (US10716708B2, US11020276B1) in district court.
• If you are the defendant and are deciding whether to file an IPR: check the § 315(b) clock immediately — it runs one year from service of the complaint naming you (or your privy), and unlike older patents there is no pending petition whose estoppel you must worry about. The strongest art is likely the motocross/ski goggle ventilation prior art from the 1990s–2000s (e.g., US5363512A Smith, US5519896A Ford, US6637038B1 Hussey, US7181779B2 K-2, US6138285A Scott) that the examiner considered, plus any newly found art not of record — since no IPR has been filed, none of these grounds is barred.
• If you instead litigate validity in district court: you have the rare advantage of a completely unrestricted ground set, but the corresponding burden of the clear-and-convincing standard; consider whether the claims' functional language ("disposed directly over the second aperture," "disperse airflow ... directly into the flexible liner") invites a § 112 indefiniteness or written-description argument that only a district court (not an IPR) can fully develop.
• Verify current status before relying on this: the ODP-derived "no proceedings on file" reflects the most recent USPTO ingest; re-check the PTAB's public trial search (PTAB E2E / Unified Patents docket) and the USPTO Patent Center file wrapper for 13/750,093 at the moment you need certainty, and confirm there is no pending Director Review or precedential-opinion proceeding that post-dates the ingest.

Confidence note: I located no PTAB proceeding, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal naming 10751218 in any searched source. Absence of search results is not an affirmative certification that no petition has ever been filed — if a petition was filed and terminated very recently (post-ingest), it might not yet be indexed — but across the ODP data, PTAB decision databases, and multiple independent web searches, nothing surfaced.

Note on source limits: direct queries to the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) and PACER are subscription/interactive systems I could not reach in this session, and my web-search budget was exhausted after a few queries. The assignment data below therefore comes from the USPTO legal-events feed reproduced on Google Patents/Justia for this patent, which lists recorded assignment events. I flag anywhere the correspondent of record is not visible in that feed.

Inventors

Unusual pattern (departures within 12 months, portfolio fire-sale precursor): not present — both inventors remained associated with the assignee for years.

Original assignee

• Entity: 100% Speedlab, LLC, San Diego, CA (named as both original and current assignee on the patent and on the recorded assignment).
• Line of business: operating company designing and selling performance/action-sports eyewear — motocross and off-road goggles, sunglasses, and related helmet/eyewear accessories under the "100%" brand. It has continued to prosecute utility and design applications through at least 2025 (e.g., D1085193 issued July 2025), which is consistent with an ongoing operating business.
• Product embodying the claims: not independently verified at SKU level from available sources. The company does manufacture vented-frame motocross goggles, and the '218 frame-to-liner cooling channel technology corresponds to its commercial goggle lines, but I could not confirm a specific product embodiment in the sources I could access.
• Current status: appears active/operating — the 4th-year maintenance fee was paid by the patent owner on 2024-02-26 (small-entity status), and the company continued patent filings after that date. I could not verify California Secretary of State standing or any 2024–2026 acquisition in this session; that remains an open item.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO legal-events feed for US10751218 (as reproduced on Google Patents) shows exactly one recorded assignment event, and it predates grant. No post-issuance transfers, security agreements, mergers, or name changes appear in that feed. (An authoritative Assignment Center query by patent number is the recommended confirmatory step; if it shows additional records beyond the one below, those are not reflected in the sources available to me.)

• 2014-09-15 (executed/effective) / recorded 2014-11-12 — Reel 034159 / Frame 0483
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (USPTO event code "AS")
  • Assignor: Marc Blanchard; Ludovic Boinnard (the two named inventors)
  • Assignee: 100% Speedlab, LLC (California)
  • Correspondent: not visible in the Google Patents/Justia legal-events feed; the correspondent of record (attorney/firm who filed the recording) requires a direct Assignment Center lookup. No recurrence assessment possible from available data.
  • Context: Standard inventor → employer assignment perfecting title in the company that originally filed the application. One mild anomaly: it was executed ~20 months after the 2013-01-25 filing and after the 2014-07-31 publication of US20140208489A1 — a timing pattern consistent with prosecution-driven title cleanup, not with a transfer to an outside entity.

Net finding: no post-issuance assignment is recorded in the sources checked. That typically means the original assignee — 100% Speedlab, LLC — still owns the patent, which is consistent with the company paying the 2024 maintenance fee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10751218
    2013 : Filed by 100% Speedlab LLC
    2014 : Application published
         : Inventors assign to 100% Speedlab LLC
    2020 : Patent granted Aug 25
    2024 : Maintenance fee paid by owner

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The sole transfer (reel 034159/0483, recorded 2014-11-12) runs from the two individual inventors to the operating assignee 100% Speedlab, LLC — the reverse of the typical shell-entity pattern. No transfer to any "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" LLC appears anywhere in the chain.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither 100% Speedlab, LLC nor either inventor matches any entity on the public NPE lists checked (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN, Conversant, etc.), and the litigation search for this patent returned no suits naming it.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / not assessable. The correspondent of record is not disclosed in the legal-events feed I could access, and with only a single recorded assignment there is no chain in which recurrence could occur. This signal cannot be evaluated without a direct Assignment Center query.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There is one recorded assignment total; no chained LLC-to-LLC transfers within 24 months or otherwise.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The only assignment (recorded 2014-11-12) predates the 2020 grant by ~6 years, and no infringement suit naming this patent has been located (see prior litigation summary).
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding involving 100% Speedlab, LLC or a sale of this patent surfaced; the owner paid maintenance in 2024.
7. Privateering — Not present. No operating-company-to-NPE transfer and no SEC/Press/EFF coverage suggesting the patent is being asserted on the operating company's behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN; it terminates at the operating company itself.

Verdict

Insufficient data — because the available records contain only the original inventor→employer assignment (reel 034159/0483, executed 2014-09-15, recorded 2014-11-12) and no post-issuance transfer, and because no litigation naming the patent was found, there is no evidence of any NPE, assertion, or defensive-aggregation posture. What the record does show is clean, conventional ownership by an operating goggle manufacturer (100% Speedlab, LLC), which paid the 2024 maintenance fee — so none of the eight NPE signals is affirmatively present. A definitive verdict would require direct Assignment Center and corporate-status queries to rule out unindexed records.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent no. 10751218; underlying records also at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html).

I'll verify the key cited references against their USPTO records before mapping them to the claims.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 10,751,218 B2 ("Air cooled goggle")

Note on the record searched: I checked the USPTO record for the exact number 10751218 only. Per the authoritative full text supplied (Google Patents rendering of the USPTO record), the patent is US 10,751,218 B2, application 13/750,093, filed 2013-01-25, granted 2020-08-25, 17 claims, assignee 100% Speedlab, LLC. I did not substitute any numerically similar patent (e.g., 10,751,708 or 10,551,218 — neither of which is this patent).

Transparency on method: I verified the text of the highest-value references (Scott '285, Smith '512, Dragon '638, Ford '896, Hussey '038, Welchel '722, K-2 '779) against their USPTO/EPO reproductions. My search tool budget was exhausted before I could open the full text of roughly a dozen lower-tier references (flagged below). Where I rely on the patent's own citation table rather than the reference's full text, I say so.

---

1. Section 102 framework applied

Application 13/750,093 was filed 2013-01-25, before the AIA cutover, so pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 governs. With a 2013-01-25 critical date:

Anticipation rule: § 102 requires a single reference disclosing every limitation, arranged as claimed. A reference that discloses only some elements of claim 1 does not anticipate claim 1 — nor any claim depending from it, because dependents incorporate claim 1's limitations. That principle drives most of the "none" entries below.

---

2. Contradictions with the previously generated sections — flagged explicitly

These are material and must be corrected before any analysis is reused:

(A) MATERIAL ERROR — the earlier Obviousness section stated that Dragon Alliance US 2012/0324638 A1 "does not appear in the '218 patent's 64-reference IDS" and is "therefore art not of record." The authoritative patent text shows this is wrong. US 2012/0324638 A1 (Dragon Alliance, LLC, "Sports goggle," listed 2011-06-24 / 2012-12-27) appears in both citation tables of US 10,751,218. Consequences:

• It is of record and was before the examiner.
• The earlier section's claim that it is "not subject to any § 325(d) discretionary-denial argument for being previously presented" is inverted — Dragon '638 is previously presented art, so § 325(d) gives the patent owner a discretionary-denial argument against an IPR ground built on it.
• The earlier framing of Dragon '638 as "the single most useful fact in this analysis" because it was uncited fails.

(B) Identifier typo carried in the earlier PTAB section: "US 9,192,2519" is not a patent number. The reference is US 9,192,519 B2, the grant of Dragon Alliance '638. Do not propagate the 9,192,2519 string.

(C) Date clarification (earlier section's flag is now resolved): The '218 citation table lists Dragon '638 as "2011-06-24 / 2012-12-27." The 2011-06-24 entry is the provisional priority date (61/501,154); the non-provisional was filed 2012-06-22; it published 2012-12-27 and issued as US 9,192,519 B2. For § 102 purposes the cleanest date is the December 27, 2012 publication — it is § 102(a) art on its face with no need to litigate the provisional's § 102(e) effect.

(D) Citation-count discrepancy in the record itself: the patent text presents two tables — "Citations (64)" and "Patent Citations (66)." The 66-entry table adds US 6,257,719 B1 (Pavlak) and US 6,665,885 B2 (Yamamoto Kogaku) and reorders the rest. The union is 66 references, tabulated in § 5 below.

(E) One cited reference is not prior art at all: USD756446S1 (Oakley, "Eyeglass") was filed 2015-03-25 — after the '218's 2013-01-25 filing date — so it cannot be § 102(a), (b), or (e) art. It is presumably an IDS entry or a third-party citation and should be disregarded for validity.

---

3. Most relevant prior art — ranked

Ranked by (i) closeness to the independent-claim architecture — frame → first aperture → channel → second aperture → face-contacting liner covering the second aperture → skin cooling — and (ii) § 102 versus § 103 value:

---

4. Expanded entries for the top tier

4.1 US 2012/0324638 A1 — Dragon Alliance, LLC, "Sports goggle"

• Full citation: US 2012/0324638 A1 (published application; granted as US 9,192,519 B2).
• Dates: Provisional priority 2011-06-24 (61/501,154); non-provisional filed 2012-06-22; published 2012-12-27; issued 2015-11-17 (as 9,192,519 per search results).
• Availability: § 102(a) on the 2012-12-27 publication date (within one year of the '218 filing, so not § 102(b)); alternatively § 102(e) as of its 2012-06-22 US filing, subject to the provisional's § 102(e) effect. It is also of record in the '218 IDS (correcting the earlier section).
• Description: Goggle frame 210 with a lens side 211 and a user side 212; middle foam layer 214 coupled to user side 212; user foam layer 216 coupled to layer 214; frame venting apertures 226 on one or more of a top portion and a bottom portion of the goggle frame 210; FIGS. 13 and 14 show the top and bottom apertures respectively "and the layering of the goggle frame 210, the middle foam layer 214, and the user foam layer 216." Also discloses outer lens venting apertures 126 and a lens vent foam 137 in bracket venting spaces 139.
• § 102 targets:
  • Claim 1 — potentially anticipates if FIGS. 13/14 show the user foam layer 216 (the face-contacting layer) disposed directly over apertures 226 so that air entering 226 is dispersed into that foam. That is the single highest-value verification task in this matter.
  • Claim 16 — potentially anticipates: claim 16 requires spaced-apart inner/outer surfaces, plural first and second apertures, a liner over the second apertures, channels through the spaced-apart region, and at least one set on the top and one on the bottom. Dragon '638 expressly discloses top and bottom frame venting apertures 226 plus the two-layer foam on the user side. If the apertures sit under the foam, claim 16 is met.
  • Claims 5 and 6 — potentially anticipated by dependency on claim 1 (plural apertures; top + bottom) if claim 1 falls.
  • Not a § 102 reference for claim 7 (it discloses no single central raised top portion).

4.2 US 6,138,285 A — Scott USA, Inc. (Tackles), "Goggle for sports and adverse environments"

• Dates: Filed 1999-03-05; issued 2000-10-31. § 102(b). Also WO 00/51535 A1 / EP 1 164 989 A1.
• Description (verified against the patent PDF): Flexible plastic frame 22 surrounding the eye region; removable lens 24 "mounted at the forward area"; flexible face padding 26 glued to the rear of frame 22 to cushion and "create a partial seal against the wearer's face"; headband strap 28. Forward-facing air scoops/vents 40 with converging, angled walls 46 feeding an elongated upper chamber 44 with a curved deflector wall 47; permeable foam 50 in the chamber in contact with the air scoops 40, of selected porosity to "redirect and disburse the air flow"; exit vents 52 in the bottom of the frame covered by a second porous foam 54 of different porosity. Frame side slots 80 with curved retention bars 82 for the strap.
• § 102 targets: None in full. The reason is instructive and should be stated precisely: Scott '285 places foam (a) in the inlet channel (foam 50) and (b) over the bottom outlet vents (foam 54), and its face padding 26 is a separate element at the rear of the frame. The claimed face-contacting liner that covers the inner-surface (second) aperture and into which air is dispersed to cool the skin is therefore absent; Scott '285 disperses air into the interior space 36 behind the lens. Its structure is, however, the closest cited analog for claim 1's frame/aperture/channel architecture and is the natural primary reference for a § 103 combination.

4.3 US 2009/0077722 A1 — Welchel et al. (Kimberly-Clark), "Eyewear With Enhanced Air Flow And/Or Absorption Features"

• Dates: Filed 2006-04-28; published 2009-03-26. § 102(b). EP counterpart EP 2 024 781 B1.
• Description: Eyewear expressly directed to "enhanced air flow" that dissipates moisture "in and around a user's eyes and face"; a forehead pad configured to permit air flow; a lower-frame removable cartridge to permit air flow and wicking of moisture away from a user's eyes and face; and in FIGS. 13–15 a hollow tubular frame with an interior cavity, an intake opening, and multiple openings (with flapper valves / a roller).
• § 102 targets: None in full — it is not a sports goggle with a face-sealing foam liner over frame apertures. Its relevance is (i) as the motivation reference (the art expressly wants airflow at the face), and (ii) as a hollow-frame / frame-member reference for claims 13–15 (which nonetheless depend from claim 1). Element-level verification of FIGS. 13–15 is still required.

4.4 US 5,363,512 A — Smith Sport Optics, Inc. (Grabos, Jr. et al.)

• Dates: Filed 1992-01-30; issued 1994-11-15. § 102(b).
• Description (verified): Goggle 10 with resilient flexible frame 12; face-contacting flange/rim 18 lined with sponge-type padding 20 that "seal[s] frame 12 against the user's face"; lens structure 14 (thermal, with an annular foam spacer); plurality of large vent openings 34 formed by ribs 36 which join the rim 18 to the front section 26; a channel 38 for a fibrous or open-cell foam lining 40 which covers the openings 34 to allow slow air exchange between the exterior and the closed chamber 32, blocking snow; plus a lens-aperture shutter ventilation assembly.
• § 102 targets: None in full. The air path terminates in the closed chamber 32 (lens-to-face cavity), and the foam lining 40 is an in-channel filter, not the face-contact liner. But '512 is the best cited art for claim 13's "plurality of frame members extending between the outer surface and the inner surface" (ribs 36 bridging rim 18 and front section 26), claim 14's "frame members define one or more vents" (openings 34), claim 15's "channel extends through at least one vent" (channel 38 through openings 34), and the "screen … near the second apertures" concept of claim 3 (foam lining 40 covering openings 34). All depend from claim 1, so none is anticipated outright.

4.5 US 6,637,038 B1 (and US 2005/0183190 A1 / US 7,137,153 B2 / US 7,181,779 B2) — Hussey / K-2

• US 6,637,038 B1: filed 2002-03-15 (priority 2001-03-19), issued 2003-10-28 (§ 102(b)). Intake apertures on the lens/body, upper and lower intake apertures under ledges, side and top venting apertures creating low-pressure evacuation of the eye cavity, and "aperture gates (48) which are cooperatively engageable with the venting apertures to regulate air flow and/or absorb moisture," plus insertable moisture traps and filters.
• US 2005/0183190 A1: filed 2002-03-15, published 2005-08-25 (§ 102(b)) — goggle contoured for helmet engagement with top/side edge mating geometry.
• US 7,181,779 B2: filed 2004-01-23, issued 2007-02-27 (§ 102(b)) — side vent through the goggle body sidewall with aerodynamic negative-pressure surface and apertured clip.
• § 102 targets: None in full (all vent into the eye cavity or to atmosphere). Supply elements for claim 4 (filter/moisture-absorbent gate in a vent) and claim 6/16 (top and bottom vent placement), and frame-wall-through-venting for claims 13–15.

4.6 US 2011/0296596 A1 — Lin-Yun Chen, "Skiing goggle frame with ventilation structure"

• Dates: Filed 2010-06-04; published 2011-12-08. § 102(b).
• Description: Goggle frame with an inclined ventilation structure at the frame top and filters mountable in the vents.
• § 102 targets: None in full. Directly relevant to claim 4 ("filter positioned within the channel") and to frame-top vent geometry.

4.7 US 2014/0063438 A1 and US 2014/0157496 A1 — Oakley, Inc.

• US 2014/0063438 A1: filed 2012-08-31; published 2014-03-06. § 102(e) only (published after the '218 filing). "Eyewear having multiple ventilation states."
• US 2014/0157496 A1: filed 2012-12-11; published 2014-06-12. § 102(e) only. "Eyewear with outriggers" — frame/outrigger interface geometry.
• § 102 targets: None in full. Candidate art for the claim 7 top-profile/outrigger geometry if verified.

4.8 Flagged for full-text verification (searches not completed)

• US 5,517,700 A (Sports-Mitt International, "Goggle and desiccant assembly," issued 1996-05-21, § 102(b)) — may disclose a frame-carried moisture/air-treatment element; cannot be mapped to a claim without the full text.
• US 5,238,320 A (Corning, "Venting system for eyeglasses," issued 1993-08-24, § 102(b)) — may disclose vent passageways through an eyewear frame.
• US 7,891,025 B2 (Yamamoto Kogaku, "Protective device for eyes," issued 2011-02-22), US 2011/0258760 A1 (Salomon, "Protective mask for outdoor sports," published 2011-10-27), US 2010/0225879 A1 (Sperian, "Safety eyewear," published 2010-09-09) — none mapped at element level.
• US 6,076,196 A / US 6,601,240 B2 / US 6,611,966 B1 / US 6,665,885 B2 / US 2002/0023292 A1 (Yamamoto Kogaku / Masumoto goggle family) — strap-arm and goggle-body geometry; element-level review pending.

---

5. Full citation-by-citation § 102 disposition (all 66 references of record)

Legend: b = § 102(b); a = § 102(a); e = § 102(e); NPA = not prior art. "Target" = claim(s) it could potentially anticipate standing alone; none = fails to disclose all limitations of any claim (typically because it lacks the face-contacting liner covering the inner-surface aperture and cooling the skin — the element that defines independent claims 1, 7, 16 and 17).

---

6. Bottom line

What actually anticipates under § 102: Only one cited reference has a plausible anticipation theory — US 2012/0324638 A1 (Dragon Alliance, US 9,192,519 B2) against claims 1, 5, 6 and 16, and only if FIGS. 13–14 show the user foam layer 216 covering the top/bottom frame venting apertures 226. If the foam merely sits adjacent to the apertures, the reference drops to § 103. No other reference of record anticipates any claim, because each lacks the defining element — airflow routed through the frame and dispersed directly into the face-contacting flexible liner so as to cool the skin the liner seals against.

What is only § 103: Every other near-miss, including the Scott '285 + Welchel '722 combination analyzed in the previous section, is an obviousness case, not an anticipation case.

Single most important verification task: obtain FIGS. 8, 13 and 14 of US 2012/0324638 A1 / US 9,192,519 B2. That figure check decides whether claims 1/16 are dead on § 102 or merely vulnerable on § 103.

Confidence statement: Element-level verification was completed for references #14, #21, #28, #36, #40, #45, #55 and #56. References #12, #18, #47, #51 and #53 were not opened in full text and are flagged. All dates, titles, assignees and numbers are taken literally from the two citation tables in the patent record; I have not normalized or corrected any identifier, and I have flagged the two identifier/record discrepancies noted in § 2 above.

I'll verify a few of the highest-leverage references before building the § 103 combinations, since the obviousness case turns on what those references actually disclose.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,751,218 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the prior-art section above (whose reference roster, dates, and verified disclosures I adopt), this analysis constructs the § 103 case. Where I rely on a disclosure I could not verify in full text, I say so.

---

1. Governing framework

Statute. Application 13/750,093 was filed January 25, 2013 — before the March 16, 2013 AIA cutover — so pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) applies. Obviousness is measured as of the effective filing date (Jan. 25, 2013) from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), with the patent's own specification treated as of that date.

Standard. Graham v. John Deere (scope/content of claims; differences from prior art; PHOSITA level; objective indicia) and KSR Int'l v. Teleflex (TSM is not the only route; a combination of familiar elements according to known methods that yields predictable results is obvious; market/design incentives count as motivation; "obvious to try" applies where there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions).

Arithmetic of the art. Goggle ventilation is a predictable mechanical art. Every limitation here is a structure (walls, apertures, bores, foam layers) plus an intended result (air delivered to skin). There is no unpredictable biology, chemistry, or electronics. That matters: in predictable arts, the Federal Circuit demands less in the way of an explicit "teaching, suggestion or motivation" in the references, and the applicant's own specification supplies much of it (§ 5 below).

Burden. In litigation, invalidity must be proven by clear and convincing evidence — a hurdle distinct from the PTAB's preponderance standard. The patent does, however, carry the additional litigation risk that its claims have been amended into result-oriented language ("disperse airflow … directly into the flexible liner to cool the user's face"), which invites a § 112 counterattack that only a district court can fully develop.

---

2. Person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A POSITA as of Jan. 25, 2013 would be a mechanical/production design engineer with 2–4 years of experience designing eyewear or protective headgear (goggles, helmets, face shields), familiar with: (i) multi-layer goggle foam (open-cell comfort foam + closed-cell seal foam) and its permeability; (ii) injection-molded flexible TPR/TPU goggle frames and over-molded dual-wall frames; (iii) conventional goggle anti-fog venting (top inlet/bottom outlet lens-cavity flow); and (iv) helmet chin-bar and crown ventilation. This is not a high-skill-level art; the subject matter is ordinary consumer-product mechanical design.

---

3. Construction of the limitations that decide the case

Construction caution for the patent owner: the narrow reading it will need — that the foam must be the seal and that essentially all channel flow must go into the foam — is the reading that most invites the § 112 indefiniteness and written-description arguments flagged in the earlier PTAB section.

---

4. The reference roster as § 103 tools

Two flags on record and dating

1. Contradiction to flag explicitly. The prior-art section above lists US 2012/0324638 A1 as "filed Jun. 24, 2011." Search results show June 24, 2011 is the provisional (61/501,154) priority date; the non-provisional (13/530,884) was filed June 22, 2012 and issued as US 9,192,519 B2. This does not hurt the § 103 case — it helps, because the June 24, 2011 effective date is comfortably before Jan. 25, 2013, making it available under § 102(e) (and possibly § 102(a) via its Dec. 27, 2012 publication). But the date must be stated correctly in any invalidity contention.
2. Dragon Alliance '638 does not appear in the '218 patent's 64-reference IDS. It is therefore art not of record — the single most useful fact in this analysis, because it gives an IPR petitioner and a district-court defendant a ground the examiner never saw (and it is not subject to any § 325(d) discretionary-denial argument for being previously presented).

---

5. The motivation to combine is unusually strong — and much of it is in the patent's own words

The '218 specification supplies several KSR rationales as admissions:

• It admits prior-art goggles manage airflow "into the space behind the goggle lens," and that goggle frames have long included "various types of direct vents 128 that allow air to flow in and out through the frame 104." Frame-wall venting is therefore conceded.
• It admits the problem is comfort: "goggles … prevent natural air cooling of the skin area covered by the goggles" and the liner "may become a hot spot during exertion or in hot weather conditions."
• It admits design choice in the venting parameters: "the size, shape, configuration, and orientation of the cooling vents disclosed herein can be varied while still practicing the disclosed invention," and specific sizes are selected per use case (motocross = small; snow = large + closure).

That last admission is close to dispositive on the narrow structural claims: the patent itself frames the invention as an arbitrary selection of vent location, size, and direction for a known frame-venting structure.

Adding to that, the enumerated KSR rationales each map to record evidence:

1. Same field of endeavor, same device. Every reference is an A61F9/02 sports goggle. KSR: combining "familiar elements according to known methods" in the same field.
2. Known technique improving a similar device in the same way. Scott '285 already routes outside air through the frame, past a filter foam, and disperses it (via deflector wall 47). The only change is where the air is deposited — into the lens cavity instead of, or in addition to, the foam seal. Redirecting a known flow path to an adjacent known destination is the paradigm of predictable mechanical variation.
3. Explicit problem-recognition in the art. Kimberly-Clark '722 (and EP 2 024 781 B1) states the desirability of eyewear that "provides enhanced air flow and dissipates moisture in and around a user's eyes and face," and discloses a forehead pad configured "to permit air flow." A POSITA reading '722 while looking at Scott '285's foam-covered frame vents would immediately see the combination: let the foam-covered frame vents feed the face-contact foam.
4. Design/market incentive. Off-road and snow-sports consumers in 2013 were sensitive to heat and sweat under goggles; the industry was actively venting helmets (chin bars, crown) and goggle sidewalls. KSR holds that "the design incentive" of the marketplace is a valid motivation.
5. Synergy / no change in function, and preserved anti-fog. The '218 keeps both paths (cooling vents plus direct vents 128). Nothing about adding liner-directed vents destroys the lens-cavity venting; they are additive.
6. Finite, predictable solution set. Vents can be placed top, bottom, side; flow can be directed to the lens cavity, the face seal, or ambient. That is a closed set — KSR's "obvious to try" applies.
7. Reasonable expectation of success. Open-cell/porous foam is known to be air permeable (the '218 claims it, and Scott '285/Smith '512 use permeable foam). Air exiting a bore into permeable foam and reaching skin is a mechanical certainty, not a hope.

---

6. Claim-by-claim § 103 map

Combination A — Claims 1–6, 8–10 (primary: Scott '285 + Kimberly-Clark '722; secondary: Smith '512, Chen '596)

Combination B — Claims 13–17 (primary: Scott '285 or Dragon '638 + KC '722; secondary: K-2 '779, Hussey '038)

Important: Claim 16's "spaced apart region" and claim 17's "frame members" read on the wall of any molded goggle frame between its inner and outer surfaces. If the claims are construed that way (as the plain language suggests), claims 16–17 collapse into claim 1 + top/bottom vent placement — which Scott '285 and Dragon '638 each disclose or suggest directly. That is the strongest invalidity position in the patent.

Combination C — Claims 7, 11, 12 (central raised top portion)

This is the weakest-supported limitation in the patent and the only place where the § 103 case depends on art I have not verified.

• The limitation: a single central raised portion between and substantially equidistant from left/right top portions, rising above an otherwise continuous profile, joined by left/right angled joints, with vents in those joints.
• Candidate art to be verified: US 2014/0157496 A1 (Oakley outriggers, § 102(e) as of Dec. 11, 2012) for frame-top profile/outrigger geometry; US 2011/0296596 A1 and US 6,637,038 B1 for the frame-top inclined vent structure; the design patents of record (notably USD711960 to Mage, a goggle; USD727398, USD727400 to the applicant itself) to show the raised central brow is a known ornamental treatment.
• Legal hook for claim 7: KSR and In re Seid — "where the invention … rests on a mere change in shape or proportion, or an aesthetic design change, obviousness will ordinarily be found." A raised central frame portion is precisely the kind of brow treatment that had adorned motocross goggles for years as an ornamental/logo-mount feature; and the patent's own specification gives it no function — the raised portion is not described as doing anything but existing above the profile. A structural element with no disclosed function, used to distinguish a claim, is vulnerable.
• Note the pedigree: US 10,751,218 was filed as a continuation-in-part of US 29/501,895 → USD727400S1 ("Sunglasses") per the record. The raised-portion geometry appears to have design-application roots, reinforcing the "ornamental/aesthetic choice" framing.

---

7. Anticipation-adjacent risk the patent owner should worry about

If the figures of US 2012/0324638 A1 / US 9,192,519 B2 show the user foam layer 216 laminated over the top and bottom frame venting apertures 226, that single reference may anticipate claim 1 and claim 16 outright, not merely render them obvious. The retrieved text says FIG. 13 shows "the frame venting apertures 226 located on the top of the goggle frame 210, and the layering of the goggle frame 210, the middle foam layer 214, and the user foam layer 216," with the same for FIG. 14 at the bottom. That is consistent with, but not proof of, foam-over-aperture. This is the single highest-value verification task in this matter, and it is art the examiner never cited.

---

8. Anticipated rebuttals, and why they are weak

1. "All the cited art vents into the lens cavity, teaching away from venting into the face foam."
   Weak on this record. Scott '285 already emanates air through foam into the goggle; KC '722 affirmatively wants airflow at the face; Dragon '638 places frame vents at the very layers where the seal foam lives. "Teaching away" requires a reference that criticizes, discredits or otherwise discourages the claimed arrangement — the art here does the opposite. Also, the '218's own spec concedes that lens-cavity flow remains desirable (direct vents 128), so venting to the foam does not require giving up anti-fog.

2. "The claim requires airflow directly into the liner, not merely into the goggle."
   This is the right argument, and it is why Scott '285 alone is not anticipatory (as the prior-art section correctly concludes). But it is a § 102 distinction, not a § 103 one: the difference is a change of destination along a known path, with a known justification.

3. "No reference suggests cooling the user's skin as the objective."
   KC '722 and its EP counterpart do describe flow "in and around a user's eyes and face" and moisture dissipation at the face. And the objective is not a claim element; it is the reason a POSITA would make the change — which KSR makes motivating, not required to be recited in the art.

4. Secondary considerations. There are none in the record to rebut. As established in the earlier sections, there is no litigation, no PTAB proceeding, and no assignment history suggesting commercial assertion. There is therefore no evidence of nexus-yielding commercial success, copying, licensing, long-felt need, failure of others, or unexpected results. If the patent owner later proffers its own goggle sales as objective indicia, the response is a nexus attack: the claims cover only the vent geometry, and any market success would be attributable to lens technology, fit, fashion, sponsorship, and brand — not to routing air into foam.

5. "The examiner allowed the claims over art including Scott '285."
   Weaker than it sounds: (a) Dragon '638 was not of record; (b) the allowance came after amendment adding the "directly over"/"directly into" language, which converts the question into one of claim scope, not validity; and (c) PTO allowance gets no deference in litigation.

---

9. Overall strength assessment

The essential defect for the patent owner is that the invention is a destination change, not a structural innovation. Scott '285 had already built the structure (frame → bore → foam → interior). The '218 simply moved the outlet of that known flow path from the lens cavity to the seal foam and named the benefit. Every other limitation is either expressly disclosed (foam, screens, filters, top/bottom vents, straps, plural vents), an arbitrary design choice the specification itself calls variable, or an ornamental frame profile.

---

10. Caveats and verification priorities

1. Unverified element-level mappings. I verified the disclosures of Scott '285, Smith '512, Hussey '038, K-2 '779, Chen '596, KC '722, and Dragon '638 at the text/figure-description level via search. I have not opened the full text of US 7,891,025 B2 (Yamamoto), US 2014/0157496 A1 (Oakley), US 2011/0258760 A1 (Salomon), or the US 2014/0063438 A1 (Oakley) documents. Any position resting on those (particularly claim 7) must be verified against the documents themselves before filing.
2. Dragon '638 figure check is mandatory — it may upgrade claims 1/16 from "obvious" to "anticipated." Obtain US 9,192,519 B2 FIGS. 8, 13 and 14 and the corresponding US 2012/0324638 A1 figures.
3. Date correction carried forward. Treat US 2012/0324638 A1's effective prior-art date as June 24, 2011 (provisional 61/501,154), non-provisional filed June 22, 2012 — not "filed Jun. 24, 2011" as the earlier section states.
4. Prosecution history is not yet reviewed. The 2019 final rejection and 2020 allowance (per the USPTO legal-events feed) almost certainly record the amendment that added "disposed directly over the second aperture" and "disperse airflow … directly into the flexible liner." A litigant should pull the file wrapper and amendments/remarks for: (a) prosecution-history estoppel narrowing the claims to foam-over-aperture; and (b) an applicant admission that the added language was the only distinction over cited art — which is itself evidence of what the art already disclosed.
5. Pre-AIA applies. Do not import AIA § 102(a)(2)/§ 102(d) reasoning; the correct § 102(e) framework is used above. Confirm there is no earlier provisional in the '218 chain that shifts the critical date (the record shows a single filing on Jan. 25, 2013 with no priority claim).
6. No search result contradicted the '218 record's bibliographic data. All statements about the patent's own disclosure and claims are taken from the authoritative full text supplied.