US 11656067

Summary of US Patent 11656067

Title: Tape measure with tape blade profile increasing tape standout

Assignee: Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp

Inventors: Jonathan F. Vitas, Abhijeet A. Khangar

Filing Date: 2021-05-24

Issue Date: 2023-05-23

Abstract: A tape measure is provided with a tape blade featuring a cross-sectional profile designed to enhance its standout distance. This profile has a curved shape that specifically increases standout. The tape blade can have a flat width greater than or equal to 29 mm and less than 32 mm.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

This patent focuses on tape measures with specially designed tape blades that achieve an improved "standout" distance – the length a tape can extend unsupported before buckling. The claims detail specific geometric ratios and dimensions of the tape blade's cross-sectional curve and its overall width, in conjunction with a retraction system.

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a tape measure with a housing, a retractable blade, and a retraction system. The blade has a metal core with upper and lower polymer coatings. Key features include a curved profile where the upper surface is concave and the lower is convex. Specifically, the metal core's flat width is less than 32 mm. The ratio of the blade's curved width to its flat width is less than 0.74, and the ratio of its curved height to its flat width is greater than 0.29. Critically, this design achieves a standout distance from the housing greater than 150 inches.

• Independent Claim 7: Similar to Claim 1, this claim also describes a tape measure with a housing, a retractable blade (metal core with polymer coatings), and a retraction system. The blade has a curved profile. However, this claim specifies a larger metal core flat width, specifically 32 mm or greater. For this wider blade, the ratio of curved width to flat width is less than 0.70, and the ratio of curved height to flat width is greater than 0.31. This configuration also achieves a standout distance from the housing greater than 150 inches.

• Independent Claim 13: This claim describes a tape measure with a housing, a retractable blade having curved upper (concave) and lower (convex) surfaces, and a retraction system. The key here is that the blade has a flat width of 30 mm or less, and its curved width is less than its flat width. This specific design results in a standout distance from the housing of at least 132 inches.

• Independent Claim 16: This claim outlines a tape measure with a housing, a retractable blade with curved upper (concave) and lower (convex) surfaces, and a retraction system. This blade has a flat width that is greater than or equal to 29 mm and less than 32 mm. Its curved width is less than its flat width, and it provides a standout distance from the housing of at least 156 inches.

• Independent Claim 19: This claim describes a tape measure with a housing, a retractable blade with curved upper (concave) and lower (convex) surfaces, and a retraction system. This blade has a flat width greater than 32 mm. Its curved width is less than its flat width, and it achieves a standout distance from the housing of at least 168 inches.

Litigation Notes:

According to the provided patent information, US11656067B2 is currently active and is involved in litigation:

• A PTAB case, IPR2026-00233, has been filed and is pending.
• A US case has been filed in the Illinois Northern District Court (case 1:25-cv-04689).
• The first worldwide family litigation has also been filed.

US Patent 11656067, titled "Tape measure with tape blade profile increasing tape standout," is involved in the following litigation:

1. District Court Case: Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. Klein Tools, Inc.

• Plaintiff(s): Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation
• Defendant(s): Klein Tools, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court
• Case Number: 1:25-cv-04689
• Filing Date: April 29, 2025
• Status: The case is currently ongoing. Milwaukee Tool alleges that several Klein Tools tape measures (models 9225, 9125AL, and 9125) infringe upon the '067 patent by copying key design elements related to tape standout. Milwaukee Tool is seeking a permanent injunction and damages.

2. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Case: IPR2026-00233

• Petitioner: Klein Tools, Inc.
• Patent Owner: Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation (implied, as they are the patent owner of US11656067)
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO
• Case Number: IPR2026-00233
• Filing Date: While the exact filing date of the IPR petition is not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, the case number IPR2026-00233 indicates it was filed in fiscal year 2026.
• Status: This is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding. It is a co-pending litigation related to the district court case, where Klein Tools, as the Petitioner, is likely challenging the validity of US patent 11656067.

Proceedings overview

There is 1 AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 11656067. This proceeding is currently active with a "Pending" status, which means the patent has not yet been challenged to a final decision. This gives a defendant a neutral defensive posture as the claims' validity is currently under examination but not yet decided.

IPR2026-00233 — Klein Tools, Inc. et al. v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-01-26
• Status: Pending. This means the proceeding is active and has not yet reached a final decision.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available at this stage.
• Petition grounds: The petition by Klein Tools, Inc. et al. challenged claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,656,067 B2, alleging obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of various prior art combinations.
• Institution decision: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted an inter partes review for claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,656,067 B2 on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, based on the asserted prior art references. The institution decision was issued on July 10, 2026.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued as the proceeding is pending. The statutory one-year deadline for the Final Written Decision is July 10, 2027.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; the proceeding is active.
• Appeal: Not applicable; the proceeding is active and no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: The institution of IPR2026-00233 on claims 1-20 means these claims are currently being reviewed for patentability. If a demand letter cites any of these claims, their validity is uncertain and subject to potential invalidation, which could weaken an assertion built on them.

Strategic summary

All 20 claims of US patent 11656067 are currently undergoing examination in IPR2026-00233. There are no claims that have been definitively canceled or sustained through a Final Written Decision yet. Consequently, all claims (1-20) are currently untested in terms of a final PTAB judgment, although their patentability is being challenged.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, if IPR2026-00233 proceeds to a Final Written Decision, Klein Tools, Inc. et al. (and their privies) will be estopped from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised against claims 1-20 in future District Court litigation or other USPTO proceedings. For a different defendant facing assertion of this patent, prior art grounds not identical to those raised in IPR2026-00233 and not reasonably discoverable by Klein Tools, Inc. et al. would theoretically still be available for a new IPR petition. However, the institution of this IPR suggests that significant prior art has been identified and deemed sufficient to warrant a trial on all claims.

The filing of this IPR by Klein Tools, Inc. et al. (and specifically mentioned by Unified Patents in the patent's litigation history) suggests a defensive aggregator or a significant competitor is challenging the patent. This is a common pattern for patents that are being asserted or are considered strategically important in the industry. The patent owner, Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp, will likely vigorously defend these claims.

Recommended next steps

• Monitor the progress of IPR2026-00233 closely via the USPTO PTAB E2E system. The institution decision was issued on July 10, 2026, meaning the Final Written Decision is due by July 10, 2027. Key milestones to watch for include expert discovery, oral hearing scheduling, and the eventual issuance of the Final Written Decision.
• Access the Institution Decision for IPR2026-00233 to understand the PTAB's reasoning for instituting the trial on claims 1-20. This decision can be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal by searching for "IPR2026-00233". A defendant should carefully review the specific prior art references and obviousness arguments that the PTAB found persuasive enough to institute the trial.
• If currently being asserted against, a defendant should evaluate whether their own prior art search has yielded stronger or different invalidity arguments that could be used in a new IPR petition, considering the estoppel implications for Klein Tools, Inc. et al., but also acknowledging the PTAB's receptiveness to the obviousness arguments already presented.
• Given that the IPR was instituted on all 20 claims, consider the possibility of a stay of any co-pending district court litigation, as the validity of all asserted claims is now being considered by the PTAB.## Proceedings overview
  There is 1 AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 11656067. This proceeding is currently active with a "Pending" status, and an institution decision has been rendered. This means the patent's claims are actively being challenged, giving a defendant a neutral-to-negative defensive posture as the claims' validity is under examination but not yet decided.

IPR2026-00233 — Klein Tools, Inc. et al. v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-01-26
• Status: Pending. The proceeding is active, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has instituted review.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) on the panel for IPR2026-00233 is not publicly available in the provided search results at this stage.
• Petition grounds: Klein Tools, Inc. et al. challenged claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,656,067 B2, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on various prior art combinations.
• Institution decision: Instituted on July 10, 2026, for claims 1-20. The PTAB determined that the petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,656,067 B2 are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, based on the asserted prior art references. According to post-SAS Supreme Court precedent, if the PTAB institutes an IPR, it must issue a final written decision addressing all claims challenged by the petitioner and all grounds for unpatentability raised by the petitioner.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued. The statutory one-year deadline from institution for a Final Written Decision is July 10, 2027.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; the proceeding is active.
• Appeal: Not applicable; the proceeding is active and no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: The institution of IPR2026-00233 means that all 20 claims of US11656067 are now formally under review by the PTAB for obviousness. Any infringement theory relying on these claims carries increased risk, as there is a judicial finding of a "reasonable likelihood" of their unpatentability. A defendant currently facing assertion of this patent should closely monitor this IPR, as a final decision invalidating these claims could significantly impact any ongoing litigation.

Strategic summary

All 20 claims of US patent 11656067 are currently undergoing examination in IPR2026-00233, having been instituted on July 10, 2026. This means there are no claims that have been definitively canceled or sustained through a Final Written Decision yet. Consequently, all claims (1-20) are currently untested in terms of a final PTAB judgment, although their patentability is being actively challenged.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, if IPR2026-00233 proceeds to a Final Written Decision, Klein Tools, Inc. et al. (and their privies) will be estopped from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised against claims 1-20 in future District Court litigation or other USPTO proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). For a different defendant facing assertion of this patent, prior-art grounds not identical to those raised in IPR2026-00233 and not reasonably discoverable by Klein Tools, Inc. et al. would theoretically still be available for a new IPR petition. However, the institution of this IPR on all claims, alleging obviousness under § 103, indicates that the PTAB found significant prior art arguments persuasive enough to proceed to trial.

The involvement of Klein Tools, Inc. et al. as the petitioner, also noted by Unified Patents, suggests a coordinated effort to challenge the patent, likely in response to assertions or as part of a broader competitive strategy. The current PTAB landscape includes new discretionary institution factors, such as domestic manufacturing presence, investment in American manufacturing operations, and small business status, that the Director may consider. However, the institution of this IPR suggests these factors did not lead to a discretionary denial in this specific case. The institution rate for IPRs has seen a downward trend, from 66-68% in fiscal years 2022-2024, to 50% in fiscal year 2025, and 37% in fiscal year 2026 year-to-date, making the institution of this IPR notable.

Recommended next steps

• Access the Institution Decision for IPR2026-00233 to understand the PTAB's detailed reasoning for instituting the trial on claims 1-20. This decision can be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal by searching for "IPR2026-00233". A defendant should carefully review the specific prior art references and obviousness arguments that the PTAB found persuasive enough to institute the trial.
• Monitor the progress of IPR2026-00233 closely via the USPTO PTAB E2E system. The Final Written Decision is due by July 10, 2027.
• Given that all 20 claims are under review, a defendant in parallel district court litigation involving this patent should consider filing a motion to stay the litigation pending the outcome of the IPR. The fact that an IPR has been instituted on all challenged claims strengthens the argument for a stay.
• Evaluate the prior art used in IPR2026-00233 against any prior art you may have discovered. If your art is cumulative, a new IPR might face discretionary denial. If it presents distinct, stronger grounds not considered in IPR2026-00233, a new IPR could still be viable, but the current PTAB climate emphasizes efficiency and avoiding serial attacks.

Inventors

• Jonathan F. Vitas (Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp)
• Abhijeet A. Khangar (Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp)

Original assignee

The original assignee is Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. They ship products embodying the claims, as the patent relates to tape measures and Milwaukee Tool is a multinational company that manufactures and markets hand tools, including tape measures. Their primary line of business is the development, manufacturing, and marketing of power tools, hand tools, tool accessories, tool storage, and personal protective equipment. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp operates as an independent subsidiary of TTI Group.

Assignment timeline

• 2021-08-13 (executed) / recorded N/A — Reel N/A
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: KHANGAR, ABHIJEET A., VITAS, JONATHAN F.
  • Assignee: MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: N/A
  • Context: Internal reorg (assignment from inventors to their employer)

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11656067
    2017 : Priority date
    2021 : Application filed by Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp
         : Inventors assigned patent to Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp
    2023 : Patent granted

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The initial assignment is from the inventors to Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation, an operating company. No evidence of transfer to a shell entity.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation is an operating company, not a known NPE.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. Only one assignment is recorded from the inventors to Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation, and no correspondent is listed for this initial internal assignment. Without further assignments, it's not possible to determine if a correspondent recurs.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment is recorded.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. There is no litigation information present in the patent text or search results to determine if this occurred.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp is an active, operating subsidiary.

7. Privateering — not present. There is no indication of Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp transferring this patent to an NPE to assert on their behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent remains with Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp, an operating company, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data. Only one assignment is recorded for this patent, which is the initial assignment from the individual inventors to their employer, Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation. Milwaukee Tool is an operating company that manufactures and sells products related to the patent. Therefore, there are no signals of NPE activity in the available assignment record.

The provided full patent text for US11656067, sourced from Google Patents, does not contain a dedicated "References Cited" section that lists prior art patents or publications in the standard format. While the "Detailed Description" mentions "three prior art competitor tape measures" and "three Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation currently on the market" when presenting comparative data in Table 1, these are referred to by product numbers or generic labels rather than patent numbers. The "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED PATENT APPLICATIONS" section lists related family applications, which are not considered prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 against the claims of US11656067 as they establish priority.

Therefore, without access to the official "References Cited" section from the USPTO database or an exhaustive display on the Google Patents page that explicitly lists cited patents, I am unable to identify and describe the specific patent citations for US11656067 as requested. To perform this analysis accurately, the formal list of "References Cited" from the patent document itself is required.

The obviousness of US patent 11656067, "Tape measure with tape blade profile increasing tape standout," can be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by identifying combinations of prior art references that would render the claimed invention obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). The patent itself provides significant information regarding prior art and the underlying principles that guide its invention.

The patent states that the invention "relates specifically to a tape measure... that includes a tape measure blade with a profile shape that increases tape standout". It further explains that "Applicant has determined that by shaping the tape blade to a relatively aggressive or steep curved profile shape... tape standout can be increased and tape droop can be decreased greatly even when utilizing relatively thin and/or relatively narrow pieces of steel for the tape blade". This establishes that the general concept of using a steeper or more aggressive curved profile to increase rigidity and standout is a known or readily ascertainable principle in the field.

The prior art identified in the patent includes:

• Milwaukee Electric Tool Prod. No. 48-22-7116 (27 mm flat width, 0.13 mm steel thickness, 108-112 inches standout).
• Milwaukee Electric Tool Prod. No. 48-22-7135 (27 mm flat width, 0.12 mm steel thickness, 110-114 inches standout).
• Milwaukee Electric Tool Prod. No. 48-22-7526 (32 mm flat width, 0.13 mm steel thickness, 142-146 inches standout).
• Prior Art Tape No. 1 (31.75 mm flat width, 0.13 mm steel thickness, 145 inches average standout).
• Prior Art Tape No. 2 (31.75 mm flat width, 0.13 mm steel thickness, 149 inches average standout).
• Prior Art 2 (CAWB 55deg) (32 mm flat width, 0.13 mm thickness, specific profile with a calculated standout).

The main independent claims of US11656067 generally revolve around specific combinations of tape blade flat width, steel thickness, curved profile parameters (curved height H1, curved width W1, and angle A), and resulting standout distances.

Obviousness Argument 1: Claims related to narrow tape blades (flat width < 27.94 mm) with high standout.

• Claimed Invention: A tape measure with a flat width less than 27.94 mm and a standout greater than 115 inches. This may include a curved height (H1) greater than 6.3 mm, a curved width (W1) less than 22.5 mm, and an angle A less than 90 degrees.
• Combination of References:
  • Milwaukee Electric Tool Prod. No. 48-22-7116 or 48-22-7135 (primary references): Both have a flat width of 27 mm (less than 27.94 mm) and standouts of 108-112 inches and 110-114 inches, respectively, which are close to, but do not exceed, 115 inches. Their profiles (e.g., 48-22-7116 with Angle A 96.26 deg, H1 5.904 mm, W1 23.4 mm) are less aggressive than the claimed parameters.
  • Milwaukee Electric Tool Prod. No. 48-22-7526, Prior Art Tape No. 1, or Prior Art Tape No. 2 (secondary references/general knowledge): These wider prior art tapes (31.75 mm or 32 mm flat width) achieve higher standouts (142-149 inches) and exhibit more aggressive or steeper profiles (e.g., 48-22-7526 has Angle A 58.48 deg, H1 8.986 mm). The patent explicitly teaches that a "steep curved profile shape... increases rigidity and buckle resistance, and in particular, tape standout is greatly increased".
• Motivation to Combine: A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to improve the standout of narrow tape blades (e.g., 27 mm flat width) beyond the 108-114 inches offered by existing products, to enhance utility or meet competitive market demands for longer standout. Recognizing that wider prior art tapes achieve significantly greater standout through more aggressive profiles, and understanding the general principle that a "more curved" profile increases rigidity and standout, a POSITA would be motivated to apply this principle to narrow blades.
• Obviousness Rationale: A POSITA, starting with a narrow tape blade like the 27 mm Milwaukee Electric Tool Prod. No. 48-22-7116, and seeking to increase its standout, would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying its profile to be more aggressive. This modification would involve reducing the Angle A (e.g., below 90 degrees), increasing the curved height H1 (e.g., above 6.3 mm), and reducing the curved width W1 (e.g., below 22.5 mm). The patent's own "Tape D" (27 mm flat width) demonstrates this exact modification resulting in 133-135 inches of standout with an Angle A of 72.42 deg, H1 of 7.5385 mm, and W1 of 21.151 mm, thereby meeting the claimed parameters and standout. This is a predictable alteration of known elements to achieve an improved, but expected, result.

Obviousness Argument 2: Claims related to low tape blade steel thickness (< 0.13 mm) with high standout.

• Claimed Invention: A tape measure with a metal thickness of less than 0.13 mm and a standout greater than 115 inches. This may include a curved height (H1) greater than 6.3 mm, a curved width (W1) less than 22.5 mm, and an angle A less than 90 degrees.
• Combination of References:
  • Milwaukee Electric Tool Prod. No. 48-22-7135 (primary reference): This tape blade has a steel thickness of 0.12 mm (less than 0.13 mm), but its standout is 110-114 inches, falling short of 115 inches. Its profile parameters (Angle A 91.12 deg, H1 6.281 mm, W1 22.8 mm) are less aggressive than the claimed ranges.
  • General knowledge in the art (as taught by the patent): The patent states, "Applicant has determined that as steel thickness T1 of tape blade 14 decreases, the degree of curvature of tape blade 14 increases to achieve a certain level of standout to account for the lower rigidity of the thin steel". This principle directly informs a POSITA on how to compensate for the reduced rigidity of thinner steel.
• Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to achieve standout greater than 115 inches with thin steel blades (e.g., 0.12 mm) to potentially reduce material costs or weight while maintaining or improving performance. Given the understanding that thinner steel has lower rigidity, and explicitly being taught that increasing the degree of curvature can compensate for this, a POSITA would be motivated to modify the profile of the 48-22-7135 tape to be more aggressive to achieve the desired standout.
• Obviousness Rationale: Starting with a thin blade like 48-22-7135, a POSITA seeking greater standout would modify its profile by increasing H1 (e.g., above 6.3 mm), decreasing W1 (e.g., below 22.5 mm), and decreasing Angle A (e.g., below 90 degrees). The patent's own "Tape B" and "Tape C," both having 0.11 mm steel thickness (less than 0.13 mm), demonstrate achieving standouts of 160-162 inches and 159-164 inches, respectively, by implementing aggressive profiles that fall within the claimed H1, W1, and Angle A ranges. This confirms that such modifications lead to the claimed result with a reasonable expectation of success.

Obviousness Argument 3: Claims related to specific ratios of curved width to flat width, and curved height to flat width, with high standout (> 150 inches).

• Claimed Invention (Flat width < 32 mm): A ratio of the curved width to a flat width of the elongate metal core less than 0.74, a ratio of the curved height to the flat width of the elongate metal core greater than 0.29, and a standout distance greater than 150 inches.

• Combination of References:

  • Prior Art Tape No. 1 or Prior Art Tape No. 2 (primary references): These tapes have a flat width of 31.75 mm (less than 32 mm) and standouts of 145 inches and 149 inches, respectively. Their ratios (e.g., Prior Art Tape No. 1 has CW/FW of 0.744913386 and CH/FW of 0.289244094) are very close to, but do not meet, the claimed thresholds for both ratios and standout.
  • General knowledge in the art (as taught by the patent): The patent states that "the ratio of W1 to flat tape width is substantially less than is typical, and... the ratio of H1 to flat tape width is substantially larger than is typical" for improved standout. This teaches that adjusting these ratios in the direction of the claimed ranges leads to better standout.

• Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to achieve standout greater than 150 inches for tape blades with flat widths close to 32 mm. Given the patent's own teaching that manipulating the curved width to flat width ratio and curved height to flat width ratio in the direction of "substantially less than typical" and "substantially larger than typical" respectively, improves standout, a POSITA would be motivated to adjust these ratios for Prior Art Tape No. 1 or 2 to achieve the desired performance.

• Obviousness Rationale: Optimizing the known design parameters of curved width and curved height relative to flat width to achieve an expected improvement in standout is within the routine skill of a POSITA. The patent's own "Tape A," "Tape B," and "Tape C" (30 mm flat width) demonstrate that achieving CW/FW ratios less than 0.74 and CH/FW ratios greater than 0.29 results in standouts greater than 150 inches, indicating that these targeted modifications are effective and predictable.

• Claimed Invention (Flat width >= 32 mm): A ratio of the curved width to a flat width of the elongate metal core less than 0.70, a ratio of the curved height to the flat width of the elongate metal core greater than 0.31, and a standout distance greater than 150 inches.

• Combination of References:

  • Prior Art 2 (CAWB 55deg) (primary reference): This tape blade has a flat width of 32 mm. Its ratios (CW/FW of 0.7059375 and CH/FW of 0.305) are very close to the claimed thresholds, and its calculated standout is presented as being less than Prototypes 1 and 2, suggesting it's below 150 inches.
  • General knowledge in the art (as taught by the patent): The principle that "standout can be increased by making the profile of the tape blade more curved" is a guiding principle. The patent also describes "Prototypes 5 and 6" (35 mm and 38 mm flat width, respectively), which exhibit the claimed ratios (e.g., Prototype 5 has CW/FW of 0.672285714 and CH/FW of 0.319428571) and achieve standouts greater than 15 feet (180 inches).

• Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to improve the standout of a 32 mm flat width tape blade, such as Prior Art 2, to achieve standout greater than 150 inches. Given the explicit teaching that increasing curvature increases standout, a POSITA would be motivated to adjust the profile ratios (CW/FW, CH/FW) to make the curve "more aggressive" or "steeper" beyond that of Prior Art 2.

• Obviousness Rationale: The adjustment of known parameters like curved width and curved height relative to flat width, in a direction known to improve rigidity and thus standout, is a predictable modification for a POSITA seeking to enhance tape measure performance. The patent's own Prototypes 5 and 6 demonstrate that achieving CW/FW less than 0.70 and CH/FW greater than 0.31 results in standout greater than 150 inches, confirming the effectiveness of these modifications. Reaching these specific numerical thresholds through routine optimization of known design parameters would be obvious.

In conclusion, the various claims of US patent 11656067 defining specific tape blade profiles for increased standout would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. This is due to the combination of existing prior art tape measures, the widely understood principle that increased blade curvature enhances rigidity and standout (a principle explicitly stated within the patent itself), and the motivation to improve performance characteristics like standout in existing tape measure designs. The specific numerical ranges defining the inventive profiles, while achieving improved performance, represent an optimization within predictable parameters, rather than an unexpected result.