Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: June 20, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`NORMAN INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`HUNTER DOUGLAS INC.
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00276
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before TONI R. SCHEINER, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and JACQUELINE
`WRIGHT BONILLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00276
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`On December 20, 2013, Norman International, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a
`
`Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 5-7 (the
`
`“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,968,884 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’884
`
`patent”). 35 U.S.C. § 311. Hunter Douglas Inc. (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a
`
`Preliminary Response (Paper 10, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a):
`
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of Petitioner’s Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response, we determine Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that
`
`it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged
`
`claims. Accordingly, the Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) for the
`
`reasons that follow.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`Contemporaneous with the instant Petition, Petitioner also filed Petitions for
`
`inter partes review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,230,896 B2, 6,283,192 B1, and 6,648,050
`
`B1. These Petitions have been assigned the following case numbers: IPR2014-
`
`00282, IPR2014-00283, and IPR2014-00286, respectively. Of the patents at issue
`
`in the four proceedings, only U.S. Patent No. 8,230,896 B2 is in the same patent
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00276
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`family as the ’884 patent. Petitioner indicates that Patent Owner filed suit against
`
`Petitioner alleging infringement of claims 5-7 of the ’884 patent, Hunter Douglas
`
`v. Nien Made Enterprise, 1:13-cv-01412-MSK-MJW (D. Colo. May 31, 2013).
`
`Pet. 1-2.
`
`B. The ’884 patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’884 patent relates to a modular transport system for opening and
`
`closing coverings for architectural openings such as venetian blinds, pleated
`
`shades, and other blinds and shades. Ex. 1001, Title, 1:14-16. Typically, a
`
`transport system for such coverings includes a top head rail which both supports
`
`the covering and hides the mechanisms used to raise and lower, and/or open and
`
`close the covering. Id. at 1:21-23. A goal of the invention is to provide a system
`
`wherein these mechanisms are housed in independent, self-contained modules that
`
`are readily interconnected to satisfy the requirements of a multitude of different
`
`window covering systems. Id. at 3:10-18. “Each module is easily and readily
`
`installed, mounted, replaced, removed, and interconnected within the blind
`
`transport system with an absolute minimum of time and expense.” Id. at 3:22-25.
`
`One embodiment of the invention described in the ’884 patent is depicted in
`
`Figure 1, reproduced below.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00276
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1, above, is a partially broken away and partially exploded view of an
`
`embodiment of a blind transport system. Ex. 1001, 5:54-56. Blind 10 includes a
`
`plurality of slats 14 suspended from head rail 12 by ladder tapes 22. Id. at 17:10-
`
`13. Two lift cords 16 extend through holes 17 in slats 14 and are fastened to
`
`bottom rail 14A. Id. at 17:13-15. Positioned inside head rail 12 are spring motor
`
`power module 20, a transmission module 30, two lifting modules 40, and lift rod
`
`26. Id. at 17:17-20, 23-24. Spring motor power module 20 includes coil spring
`
`200, storage spool 206, and power spool 208. Id. at 17:39-41. Power spool 208
`
`drives rotation of lift rod 26 via transmission 30, causing lift cords 16 to either
`
`wind onto or unwind from lifting modules 40, thereby raising or lowering blind 10.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00276
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`Id. at 18:42-47, 26:6-16.
`
`The transport system has a certain amount of system inertia caused by the
`
`mass of the covering as well as the frictional resistance of the components. Id. at
`
`58:10-13. “[W]hen the blind is in the fully raised position, the available force to
`
`keep the blind in that raised position must be equal to or greater than weight
`
`(gravitational force) pulling down on the blind minus the system inertia which acts
`
`so as to keep the blind in the raised position.” Id. at 58:16-21. “[T]he force
`
`required to keep the blind in the fully lowered position must be less than the weight
`
`of the blind . . . plus the system inertia which acts to keep the blind in the lowered
`
`position.” Id. at 58:24-28.
`
`The ’884 patent also describes the use of a one-way brake to provide
`
`artificial system inertia. Id. at 58:43-45. An embodiment of a one-way brake is
`
`illustrated in Figure 183B below.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00276
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`Figure 183B, above, is an exploded view of a one-way adjustable brake
`
`module 900A. Ex. 1001, 15:29-30. Input shaft 914 of brake module 900A mates
`
`with a shaft of an adjacent module, e.g., transmission module 30. Id. at 58:64-67.
`
`Input shaft 914 drives cogged drive 916, which drives output shaft 922. Id. at
`
`60:9-11. Output shaft 922 of brake module 900A connects to lift rod 26. Id. at
`
`58:67–59:1. Toothed drive 932 is mounted over cogged drive 916 and drives
`
`brake drum 926. Id. at 60:12-13. The rear face of toothed drive 932 defines a
`
`plurality of inclined teeth 940, which mate with corresponding inclined teeth 940A
`
`in the front face of brake drum 926. Id. at 59:22-25. When the blind is lowered,
`
`input shaft 914 rotates in one direction causing teeth 940 of toothed drive 932 to
`
`push against teeth 940A of brake drum 926. Id. at 59:25-28. When the blind is
`
`raised, input shaft 914 rotates in the opposite direction and toothed drive 932 does
`
`not push against brake drum 926, allowing brake drum 926 to spin freely. Id. at
`
`59:28-32. In other words, brake module 900A provides a force that operates
`
`against the lowering of the blind, but provides no braking force when the blind is
`
`being raised. Id. at 58:55-58.
`
`Brake shoe 928 is urged against brake drum 926 by the force of spring 942.
`
`Id. at 60:15-16. Screw 944 controls the tension of spring 942, and can be tightened
`
`or loosened to adjust the amount of friction between brake shoe 928 and brake
`
`drum 926. Id. at 60:16-18. The ’884 patent also describes an alternative
`
`embodiment wherein screw 944 automatically increases friction between brake
`
`shoe 928 and brake drum 926 the higher blind 10 is raised, and decreases friction
`
`between brake shoe 928 and brake drum 926 the more blind 10 is lowered. See id.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`at 59:51-62.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00276
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 5 and 7 are independent. Claim 6 depends
`
`from claim 5. Claim 5, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
`
`matter:
`
`5. A system for covering an architectural opening, comprising:
`
`a covering movable between an extended position for covering
`the opening and a retracted position for uncovering the opening;
`
`a spring motor including a coil spring and a power spool,
`wherein said coil spring wraps onto and off of said power spool;
`
`a rotating output operatively connected to the power spool of
`the spring motor;
`
`a lift cord operatively connected to the rotating output and to
`the covering;
`
`said rotating output being rotatable in clockwise and
`counterclockwise directions to move the covering between its
`extended and retracted positions; and
`
`a one-way friction brake operatively connected to said rotating
`output, said one-way friction brake providing a braking force that
`stops the rotation of the rotating output in one of the directions while
`permitting the rotating output to rotate freely in the other of said
`directions.
`
`D. The Evidence of Record
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following references, as well as the declaration of
`
`Lawrence E. Carlson, executed December 19 2013 (Ex. 1007, “Carlson
`
`Declaration”):
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00276
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`References
`
`Patents/Printed Publications
`
`Exhibit
`
`Todd
`
`Strahm
`
`Kuhar
`
`Lohr
`
`US 6,056,036
`
`US 3,327,765
`
`US 5,531,257
`
`US 3,216,528
`
`McClintock
`
`US 5,641,229
`
`
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability claims 5-7 of the ’884 patent based on
`
`the following grounds:
`
`References
`
`Todd
`
`Todd and Strahm
`
`Todd, Strahm, and
`McClintock
`Kuhar and Lohr
`
`Kuhar, Lohr, and
`McClintock
`
`
`Basis
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`Claims challenged
`
` 5-7
`
`5-7
`
`6
`
`5-7
`
`6
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`Consistent with the statute and the legislative history of the Leahy-Smith
`
`America Invents Act (“AIA”), Public Law No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16,
`
`2011), the Board will interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00276
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent. See Office
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claims
`
`are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
`
`specification, and the claim language should be read in light of the specification as
`
`it would be interpreted by a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad.
`
`of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`We determine no express construction of the claim language is needed for
`
`this Decision.
`
`IV. ANALYSIS
`
`The Board may exclude or give no weight to evidence relied upon to support
`
`the challenge where Petitioner has failed to state its relevance or to identify
`
`specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(5). We give no weight to the Carlson Declaration (Ex. 1007) because
`
`Petitioner fails to state its relevance or identify specific portions of the Declaration
`
`that support the challenge. See Pet. 3 (providing the only citation to Ex. 1007,
`
`other than Exhibit List).
`
`A. Obviousness of Claims 5-7 over Todd
`
`1. Todd (Exhibit 1002)
`
`Todd describes a roller shade for a window that includes shade 14 extending
`
`between and secured to upper rail assembly 16 and lower rail assembly 12. Ex.
`
`1002, 3:64-65, 4:3-4. Upper rail assembly 16 includes decorative top rail 18,
`
`mounted within window frame 22, and drive mechanism 20 housed in top rail 18.
`
`Id. at 3:65-67–4:2, 4:8-10, Figure 1. Drive mechanism 20 is illustrated in Figure 3
`
` 9
`
`
`
`below. Id. at 3:52.
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00276
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
` As shown in Figure 3, above, drive mechanism 20 includes spool
`
`assemblies 24, spring assembly 26, and brake/clutch mechanism 28. Ex. 1002,
`
`4:10-13. “Spool assemblies 24 are connected and driven by spring assemblies 26
`
`via shaft 30, which is also interconnected with brake/clutch mechanism 28.” Id. at
`
`4:14-16. Each spool assembly 24 includes tape 32 having one end attached to tape
`
`spool 34 and the other end attached to lower rail assembly 12. Id. at 4:36-39.
`
`“Tape spool 34 is driven by shaft 30 and serves as a reel for tape 32 to wind upon.”
`
`Id. at 4:36-37.
`
`Spring assembly 26 includes housings 54, spring take-up spool 56 and
`
`constant torque spring 58. Id. at 5:9-11. A cross-sectional view of an embodiment
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00276
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`of spring assembly 26 is shown in Figure 6 below. Id. at 3:58-59.
`
`
`
`Constant torque spring 58, shown in Figure 6 above, is pre-loaded to apply
`
`enough tension to shaft 30 to support shade 14 when it is in a fully retracted
`
`position. Ex. 1002, 5:50-52. As shade 14 is extended, tape 32 unrolls from tape
`
`spool 34, shaft 30 turns in a counter-clockwise direction, and constant torque
`
`spring 58 is drawn upon take-up spool 56. Id. at 5:41-45, 6:10-15.
`
`Shade 14 is locked in the desired position by “[b]rake/clutch mechanism 28
`
`[which] features one-way operation.” Id. at 5:53-55. A conventional spring-
`
`loaded cam pin locks into a steel guide within the clutch when shade 14 is pulled to
`
`the desired length, and is released from the steel guide by pulling shade 14
`
`downward a predetermined amount to allow retraction of shade 14. Id. at 6:17-20,
`
`23-26. When the spring-loaded cam pin is released, spring 58 winds back upon
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00276
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`itself, exerting a clockwise force upon shaft 30. Id. at 5:46-50, 6:29-32. Rotation
`
`of shaft 30 causes tape spool 34 to begin reeling in tape 32, which in turn causes
`
`shade 14 to rise. Id. at 6:29-34. Retraction speed of shade 14 is regulated by a
`
`centrifugal braking system contained within brake/clutch mechanism 28, which
`
`applies increasing braking force to counteract the increasing rotational velocity of
`
`shaft 30 as shade 14 rises, resulting in a constant retraction speed of shade 14. Id.
`
`at 5:57-62. The centrifugal braking system “prevents violent retraction of the
`
`shade due to the combined forces of the internal spring mechanism and the
`
`inherent spring characteristics of the shade material.” Id. at 3:35-38.
`
`2. Analysis
`
`Petitioner contends Todd discloses the limitations of challenged claims 5-7
`
`with the exception that Todd’s brake/clutch mechanism 28 does not allow the
`
`rotating output (shaft 30) to “rotate freely” in one direction as recited in
`
`independent claims 5 and 7. Pet. 18-27. Petitioner contends it would have been
`
`obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`disengage the centrifugal braking system in Todd’s brake/clutch mechanism 28,
`
`thereby permitting shaft 30 to rotate freely in one direction. Id. at 22, 26.
`
`In response, Patent Owner argues Todd does not “provide any motivation for
`
`modifying [its] teachings with those of the secondary references, and Petitioner
`
`provides no explanation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would look to any
`
`other reference for missing elements.” Prelim. Resp. 27-28.
`
` “The inventor’s own path itself never leads to a conclusion of obviousness;
`
`that is hindsight. What matters is the path that the person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have followed, as evidenced by the pertinent prior art.” Otsuka Pharm.
`
`Co., Ltd. v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d 1280, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A factual
`
`foundation is important to support a party’s claim about what a person having
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00276
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant art would have known. Randall Mfg v. Rea, 733 F.3d
`
`1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013). There can be no motivation to modify if to do so
`
`would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended
`
`purpose. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
`
`We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not explained adequately
`
`why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to modify
`
`Todd’s device to disengage or modify the centrifugal braking system in
`
`brake/clutch mechanism 28 to allow shaft 30 to rotate freely in one direction.
`
`Petitioner has not explained why the ordinary artisan would have made this
`
`modification, which would have eliminated the feature of a constant retraction
`
`speed of shade 14, which Todd uses to prevent uncontrolled retraction of shade 14.
`
`See Ex. 1002, 5:57-62, 3:35-38 supra p. 12.
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood it would prevail on
`
`the ground that claims 5-7 are unpatentable over Todd.
`
`B. Obviousness of Claims 5-7 over Todd in view of Strahm
`
`1. Strahm (Exhibit 1003)
`
`Strahm describes “a raising and lowering mechanism for a blind” that
`
`includes a brake for controlling the rate of descent of the blind, the brake being
`
`“automatically released during raising of the blind so that raising can be performed
`
`with the minimum of effort.” Ex. 1003, 1:29-34. The blind comprises a number of
`
`parallel slats 1 suspended from operating shaft 4 by flexible ladders 2. Id. at 2:2-9.
`
`Operating shaft 4 can be driven by a crank or a motor. Id. at 4:10-11. Pull-tapes 6,
`
`attached to bottom cross-member 5 of the blind, are wound around drums 11, 12,
`
`which are disposed in the raising and lowering mechanism. Id. at 2:14-16, 33-34.
`
`A cross-sectional view of the raising and lowering mechanism is shown in Figure 6
`
`below. Id. at 1:68-71.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00276
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
` As shown in Figure 6 above, drums 11, 12 are rigidly connected to bevel
`
`gears 11’, 12’, which mesh with bevel gear 18. Ex. 1003, 2:36-40. Bevel gear 18
`
`is freely rotatable on shaft 4 and connected to drive sleeve 19 via helical spring 21.
`
`Id. at 2:39-42. Sleeve 32 is also freely rotatable on operating shaft 4. Id. at 3:14.
`
`Ring 35 is screwed on sleeve 32 in a manner that compresses conical washers 33,
`
`36, forming a friction brake between stationary wall 34 and rotatable sleeve 32. Id.
`
`at 3:19-25. Helical spring 30 forms a one-way coupling between drive sleeve 19
`
`and sleeve 32 when sleeve 19 rotates in the direction indicated by arrow B,
`
`corresponding to lowering the blind. Id. at 3:25-30. The coupling slips when
`
`sleeve 19 rotates in the direction indicated by arrow A, corresponding to raising the
`
`blind. Id. at 3:30-32. “The brake therefore operates only during the descent of the
`
`blind and is automatically cut out of operation during the raising of the blind.” Id.
`
`at 3:32-35; see also, id. at 4:32-33 (“The brake 32 is ‘off’ for ascent, so that
`
`relatively little torque is required.”).
`
`2. Analysis
`
`Petitioner contends Todd discloses the limitations of challenged claims 5-7
`
`with the exception of a one-way friction brake as recited in independent claims 5
`
`and 7. Pet. 27-35. Petitioner maintains “Strahm’s one-way friction brake
`
`corresponds to and discloses the one-way friction brake of [challenged claims 5-
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00276
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`7]” and, therefore, “the combination of Todd and Strahm teaches each feature
`
`recited in [challenged claims 5-7] and renders the subject matter of [challenged
`
`claims 5-7] as a whole obvious and unpatentable.” Id. at 31, 33, 35; see also, id. at
`
`28 (“Because of the close linkages amongst Todd and Strahm with respect to the
`
`subject matter in the 884 Patent, there is a motivation or suggestion in the
`
`teachings by Todd and Strahm to enable a person having ordinary skill in the art to
`
`combine the teachings of these references.”).
`
`As explained by the Federal Circuit:
`
`Obviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art
`includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a
`claim under examination. . . . Rather, obviousness requires the
`additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the
`invention would have selected and combined those prior art elements
`in the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed
`invention.
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations
`
`omitted). “To render a claim obvious, prior art cannot be ‘vague’ and must
`
`collectively, although not explicitly, guide an artisan of ordinary skill towards a
`
`particular solution. . . . [A] combination is only obvious to try if a person of
`
`ordinary skill has ‘a good reason to pursue the known options.’” Id. at 1361
`
`(quoting KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)). An analysis
`
`regarding an apparent reason to combine known elements “should be made
`
`explicit.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner, see Prelim. Resp. 30, that Petitioner has not
`
`explained adequately why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had
`
`a reason to modify Todd’s device to include Strahm’s one-way friction brake in the
`
`manner required by challenged claims 5-7, because Todd’s device already includes
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00276
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`brake/clutch mechanism 28. Nor has Petitioner explained why a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to eliminate the centrifugal
`
`braking system in Todd’s brake/clutch mechanism 28 in view of Strahm, as this
`
`modification would have eliminated the feature of a constant retraction speed of
`
`shade 14. See Ex. 1002, 5:57-62 supra, p. 12.
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood it would prevail on
`
`the ground that claims 5-7 are unpatentable over Todd in view of Strahm.
`
`C. Obviousness of claims 5-7 over Kuhar in view of Lohr
`
`1. Kuhar (Exhibit 1004)
`
`Kuhar describes “a cordless blind or shade in which a spring motor is used
`
`to eliminate conventional pull cord and cord-lock mechanisms.” Ex. 1004, 2:29-
`
`31. Figure 9, below, is a schematic representation of a motor system for raising a
`
`blind. Id. at 4:1-3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00276
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`Blind system 90, as shown in Figure 9 above, includes a plurality of slats 95
`
`extending between bottom bar 92 and headrail 94. Ex. 1004, 6:7-10. Bottom bar
`
`92 is movable relative to headrail 94 via attachment to lifting cords 96, 97. Id. at
`
`6:12-14, 34-36. Lifting cords 96, 97 are wound onto cord spools 30 to open blind
`
`system 90 or unwound from cord spools 30 to close blind system 90. Id. at 6:21-
`
`24, 34-36. Output drum 20 of spring motor unit 40 drives cord spool 30 via axle
`
`44. Id. at 4:59, 4:67–5:4. Spring motor unit 40 also includes storage drum 10 and
`
`spring 45 coupled between output drum 20 and storage drum 10. Id. at 4:65-67,
`
`5:5-6. When the blind is in the lowered position, most of spring 45 is wound on
`
`output drum 20, thereby decreasing the amount of force exerted on bottom bar 92.
`
`Id. at 6:22-30. As the blind is raised, spring 45 is wound onto storage drum 10. Id.
`
`at 6:15-17. According to Kuhar, “while the weight exerted on lifting cords 96 and
`
`97 will vary as the blind is raised and lowered, frictional forces are present which
`
`can be sufficient to maintain the shade in any desired position without free fall.”
`
`Id. at 7:24-28. Kuhar describes enhancing frictional forces by a device which
`
`increases tension on lifting cords 96, 97. Id. at 5:13-18, 7:28-30.
`
`2. Lohr (Exhibit 1005)
`
`Lohr describes a spring motor drive, which is said to be useful “in several
`
`fields including the toy industry.” Ex. 1005, 1:16-17. The spring motor drive
`
`utilizes a prestressed spring and includes “positive mechanical braking means to
`
`halt the rotation of the power drum just short of the completed retraction of the
`
`prestressed spring, together with clutch means permitting continued rotation of a
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00276
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`drive shaft.” Id. at 1:33-37. Figure 5, below, is a side elevational view showing an
`
`embodiment of the spring drive motor and braking means at the end of the
`
`retraction of the prestressed spring. Id. at 2:23-26.
`
`
`
`As illustrated in Figure 5 above, the spring motor drive includes prestressed
`
`spring 3 (unnumbered), wound on storage spool 1 and reversely bent around and
`
`fastened at end 20 to the periphery of power drum 19. Id. at 2:40-47, 3:42-48. In
`
`use, prestressed spring 3 is wound onto power drum 19 under tension. Id. at 4:20-
`
`26. When power drum 19 is released, prestressed spring 3 returns to storage spool
`
`1 causing rotation of power drum 19, transmitting driving force to drive shaft 29 by
`
`meshing of drum gear 30 with drive pinion 32. Id. at 4:23-34. Drive shaft 29 is
`
`used to power a device. Id. at 3:69-74.
`
`In order to prevent an abrupt halt to power drum 19 and possible damage to
`
`the end of spring 3 attached thereto, brake mechanism 37 is utilized to slow down
`
`the rotation of power drum 19. Id. at 4:35-38. Brake mechanism 37 comprises a
`
`brake arm 40 which is urged against the periphery of power drum 19 when spring 3
`
`has almost fully unwound from power drum 19. Id. at 4:69–5:3. Once brake
`
`mechanism 37 has stopped rotation of power drum 19 and storage spool 1, drive
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00276
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`shaft 29 continues to rotate due to the clutch means, id. at 5:5-8, illustrated more
`
`clearly in Figure 7, below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 7, above, is a partial bottom plan view of the Figure 5 embodiment.
`
`Ex. 1005, 2:29-30. As explained above, power is transferred from the spring drive
`
`motor by meshing of drum gear 30 with drive pinion 32. Id. at 4:23-34. Drive
`
`pinion 32 and attached ratchet sleeve 31 are slidably mounted on drive shaft 29,
`
`and urged by spring 36 toward engagement with ratchet sleeve 33, which is fixedly
`
`attached to drive shaft 29. Id. at 4:1-2, 9-13. “One end of the ratchet sleeve 33 is
`
`provided with suitable one-way clutch means such as ratchet teeth 34 which
`
`cooperate with mating ratchet teeth 35 on the opposed end of the sliding ratchet
`
`sleeve 31.” Id. at 4:5-9. Ratchet teeth 34, 35 are engaged during rotation of power
`
`drum 19 to transmit rotative motion to drive shaft 29. Id. at 4:32-33. When
`
`rotation of power drum 19 is stopped by brake mechanism 37, ratchet teeth 34, 35
`
`disengage, allowing free wheeling of drive shaft 29. Id. at 4:37-43.
`
`3. Analysis
`
`Petitioner contends Kuhar discloses the limitations of challenged claims 5-7
`
`with the exception of a one-way friction brake as recited in independent claims 5
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00276
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`and 7. Pet. 36-45. Petitioner contends “the one-way friction brake mechanism of
`
`Lohr corresponds to” the one-way friction brake of challenged claims 5 and 7.
`
`Id. at 40, 44. Petitioner thus maintains “the combination of Kuhar and Lohr
`
`teaches each feature recited in [challenged claims 5-7] and renders the subject
`
`matter of [challenged claims 5-7] as a whole obvious and unpatentable.” Id. at 41,
`
`45; see also, id. at 37 (“Because of the close linkages amongst Kuhar and Lohr in
`
`the spring motor drives and associated braking mechanisms with respect to the
`
`subject matter in the 884 Patent, there is a motivation or suggestion in the general
`
`teachings by Kuhar and Lohr to enable a person having ordinary skill in the art to
`
`combine the teachings of these references. Such combinations render Claims 5-7
`
`of the 884 Patent unpatentable.”).
`
`In response, Patent Owner argues Kuhar does not “provide any motivation
`
`for modifying [its] teachings with those of the secondary references,” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 27, and that “merely identifying ‘close linkages’ between Kuhar and Lohr is
`
`an insufficient motivation to combine,” id. at 34.
`
`An analysis regarding an apparent reason to combine known elements
`
`“should be made explicit.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner has not explained
`
`adequately why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason
`
`to modify Kuhar’s device to include Lohr’s brake mechanism in the manner
`
`required by challenged claims 5-7. Petitioner has not explained why a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to use Lohr’s brake
`
`mechanism in Kuhar’s device given Kuhar’s disclosure of friction imparting
`
`devices used with lifting cords 96, 97, which are said to be sufficient to maintain
`
`the shade in any desired position without free fall. See Kuhar 5:13-18, 7:24-30
`
`supra, p. 18.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00276
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
` Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood it would prevail on
`
`the ground that claims 5-7 are unpatentable over Kuhar in view of Lohr.
`
`D. Obviousness of Claim 6 over Todd in view of Strahm and McClintock,
`and over Kuhar in view of Lohr and McClintock
`
`1. McClintock (Exhibit 1006)
`
`McClintock describes a mechanical rotator for mixing samples with reagent
`
`chemicals in medical testing. Ex. 1006, 1:21-22, 45-46. Sample rotator 10
`
`comprises orbiting member 20 connected to output shaft 102 of manually operated
`
`rotary spring motor (or drive) 100. Id. at 2:65-67. Spring motor 100 comprises
`
`constant-torque producing flat-coil spring 104, having one end connected to a fixed
`
`member such as a housing and the other end connected to rotatable drive shaft 106.
`
`Id. at 3:67–4:5. Flat-coil spring 104 rotates drive shaft 106, in turn rotating output
`
`shaft 102 at a higher speed than driving shaft 106 via transmission 130. Id. at
`
`4:26-30.
`
`2. Analysis
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends the combined teachings of (1) Todd and Strahm, and (2)
`
`Kuhar and Lohr disclose the limitations of challenged claim 6, with the exception
`
`of “a transmission operatively connected to the spring motor and to the rotating
`
`output,” as recited in challenged claim 6. See Pet. 36, 45. Petitioner contends
`
`“transmission [130] of McClintock corresponds to the transmission of Claim 6”
`
`and thus the combinations of Todd, Strahm, and McClintock, and Kuhar, Lohr, and
`
`McClintock render Claim 6 unpatentable. Id. In response, Patent Owner argues
`
`Petitioner fails to provide any reason to combine McClintock with (1) Todd and
`
`Strahm, or (2) Kuhar and Lohr. Prelim. Resp. 31, 34. Patent Owner also argues
`
`McClintock is nonanalogous art. Id. at 31.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00276
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`As explained above, Petitioner has not explained adequately why a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify (1) Todd in
`
`view of Strahm or (2) Kuhar in view of Lohr in the manner required by
`
`independent claim 5, from which challenged claim 6 depends. Further, Petitioner
`
`has not provided sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning as to
`
`why an ordinary artisan at the time of the invention would have had a reason to
`
`modify the combination of Todd and Strahm, or the combination of Kuhar and
`
`Lohr to include a transmission as taught by McClintock.
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood it would prevail on
`
`the ground that claim 6 is unpatentable over Todd in view of Strahm and
`
`McClintock or on the ground that claim 6 is unpatentable over Kuhar in view of
`
`Lohr and McClintock.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail
`
`on the grounds that claims 5-7 would have been obvious over Todd alone, Todd in
`
`combination with Strahm, or Kuhar in combination with Lohr. Petitioner has not
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on the grounds that
`
`claim 6 would have been obvious over Todd in combination with Strahm and
`
`McClintock, or Kuhar in combination with Lohr and McClintock.
`
`For the reasons given, it is
`
`VI. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00276
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Bing Ai
`Ai@perkinscoie.com
`
`Kourtney Mueller
`Kmerrill@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Kristopher Reed
`kreed@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Darin Gibby
`dgibby@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`
`
`23