`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`
`ARTSANA USA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,388,501
`Issue Date: March 5, 2013
`Filed: August 20, 2012
`
`Title: PLAY GYMS AND METHODS OF OPERATING THE SAME
`
`
`___________
`
`
`Case No. IPR:_____________
`
`___________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,388,501
`
`
`
`3032825-4
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)…………....1
`
`A. REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)….…1
`
`B. RELATED MATTERS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)…………….1
`
`C. LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL UNDER 37 C.F.R.
` § 42(b)(3)………………………………………………………….…1
`
`D. SERVICE INFORMATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42(b)(4)……..…..2
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103………………...…...2
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS OF INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104…………………………………………………………….……....2
`
`A. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104(a)……………………………………………………2
`
`B. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b) AND RELIEF REQUESTED………………………...…2
`
`
`1. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)……………………...2
`
`2. IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIFIC STATUTORY
`GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§42.104(b)(2)…………………………………………...3
`
`a. PRIOR ART PATENTS AND PRINTED
`PUBLICATIONS……………………………….…...3
`
`b. EXPERT AFFIDAVIT………………………………4
`
`3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE…………...4
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`3032825-4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GROUND 1 ..................................................... 4
`
`GROUND 1……………………………………………..4
`GROUND 2……………………………………………..5
`GROUND 3……………………………………………..5
`GROUND 4……………………………………………..5
`GROUND 5……………………………………………..5
`GROUND 6……………………………………………..5
`GROUND 7……………………………………………..5
`
`GROUND 2 ..................................................... 5
`
`GROUND 3 ..................................................... 5
`
`GROUND 4 ..................................................... 5
`
`GROUND 5 ..................................................... 5
`
`GROUND 6 ..................................................... 5
`
`GROUND 7 ..................................................... 5
`
`V.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES ............................................................ 5
`
`VI.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘501 PATENT .......................................... 7
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES……………………………………………….…..5
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘501 PATENT………………………………..….7
`
`
`A. PRIORITY AND CLAIMS OF THE ‘501 PATENT…………...……7
`
`B. THE ADMITTED PRIOR ART IN THE ‘501 PATENT……………8
`
`A. PRIORITY AND CLAIMS OF THE ‘501 PATENT ..................... 7
`
`B. THE ADMITTED PRIOR ART IN THE ‘501 PATENT ............... 8
`
`C. THE EMBODIMENTS OF THE ‘501 PATENT…………………....9
`
`C. THE EMBODIMENTS OF THE ‘501 PATENT ......................... 9
`
`1. PLAY YARDS AND BASSINETS OF THE ‘501
`
`PATENT ....................................................... 10
`
`1. PLAY YARDS AND BASSINETS OF THE ‘501
`PATENT……………………………………………….10
`
`2. THE FLOOR MAT OF THE ‘501 PATENT…….…....10
`
`2. THE FLOOR MAT OF THE ‘501 PATENT .............. 10
`
`3. THE PLAY GYM OF THE ‘501 PATENT…….….….11
`
`3. THE PLAY GYM OF THE ‘501 PATENT ............... 11
`
`
`
`VII.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .................................................... 13
`
`VIII.
`
`SUMMARY OF REFERENCES .............................................. 13
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION…………………………………….………13
`
`VIII. SUMMARY OF REFERENCES………………………………….……13
`
`A. DOLE………………………………………………………….….....13
`B. GRACO……………………………………………………………...15
`C. CENTURY……………………………………………………..…....15
`D. RUPERT………………………………………………………..…...16
`E. TYCO……………………………………………………….......…...17
`
`IX. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION……………………………….19
`
`A. GROUND 1………………………………………………………….19
`B. GROUND 2………………………………………………………….23
`
`A. DOLE ........................................................................... 13
`
`B. GRACO ........................................................................ 15
`
`C. CENTURY ..................................................................... 15
`
`D. RUPERT ....................................................................... 16
`
`E. TYCO ............................................................................ 17
`
`IX.
`
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ..................................... 19
`
`A. GROUND 1 ................................................................... 19
`
`B. GROUND 2 ................................................................... 23
`
`3032825-4
`3032825-4
`
`iii
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. GROUND 3 ................................................................... 25
`
`D. GROUND 4 ................................................................... 41
`
`E. GROUND 5 ................................................................... 49
`
`F. GROUND 6 ................................................................... 52
`
`G. GROUND 7 ................................................................... 56
`
`C. GROUND 3……………………………………………….…………25
`D. GROUND 4………………………………………………….………41
`E. GROUND 5………………………………………………….………49
`F. GROUND 6…………………………………………………….……52
`G. GROUND 7……………………………………………….…………56
`
`X. CONCLUSION………………………………………………..………..59
`
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................... 59
`
`3032825-4
`3032825-4
`
`iv
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT TABLE
`
`
`
` EXHIBIT NO.
`
`DOCUMENT
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,388,501 to Myers et al. (“the ‘501 Patent”)
`
`Complaint filed July 8, 2013 in the case of Kolcraft Enterprises,
`Inc. v. Artsana USA,Inc., No. 1:13-cv-04863 (N.D. Ill.)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,223,098 to Dole (“Dole”)
`
`Graco Pack ‘N Play Model No. 386-11-01 Owner’s Manual (©
`2001) (“Graco”)
`
`Century Fold-n-Go Care Center Manual (January 1998)
`(“Century”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,948,287 to Rupert (“Rupert”)
`
`Answer to Complaint, Tyco Industries, Inc. v. Tiny Love, LTD,
`914 F. Supp. 1068 (1996) (No. 95-1135)
`
`Affidavit of Ronald Brawer, Tyco Industries, Inc. v. Tiny Love,
`LTD, 914 F. Supp. 1068 (1996) (No. 95-1135)
`
`Declaration of Denny Conley, Tyco Industries, Inc. v. Tiny
`Love, LTD, 914 F. Supp. 1068 (1996) (No. 95-1135)
`
`Affidavit of Jerome J. Drobinski
`
`Curriculum vitae of Jerome J. Drobinski
`
`Declaration of Max S. Morgan
`
`
`
`3032825-4
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Artsana USA, Inc. (hereinafter “Artsana” or “Petitioner”) submits this
`
`petition for inter partes review seeking a decision of unpatentable for claims 1-20
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,388,501 (“the ‘501 Patent”), Exhibit 1001, which is assigned
`
`to Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. (hereinafter “Kolcraft” or “Patent Owner”).
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`
`A. REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`The real party in interest is Artsana USA, Inc., a New Jersey corporation.
`
`B. RELATED MATTERS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`The following litigation matter would affect or be affected by a decision in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this proceeding: Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. v. Artsana USA, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-
`
`04863 (N.D. Ill.). The Complaint, Exhibit 1002, asserts claims 1, 9, and 14 of the
`
`‘501 Patent against Petitioner.
`
`C. LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42(b)(3)
`
`
`
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel:
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Anthony S. Volpe (Reg. No. 28,377)
`(avolpe@vklaw.com)
`Volpe and Koenig, P.C.
`30 S. 17th Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Tel: (215) 568-6400 x101
`Fax: (215) 568-6499
`
`
`Ryan W. O’Donnell (Reg. No. 53,401)
`(RODonnell@vklaw.com)
`Volpe and Koenig, P.C.
`30 S. 17th Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Tel: (215) 568-6400 x109
`Fax: (215) 568-6499
`
`3032825-4
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. SERVICE INFORMATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42(b)(4)
`
`Please address all correspondence to the lead and back-up counsel at the
`
`address provided in Section II(C) of this Petition. Petitioners also consent to
`
`electronic service by email at: patents@vklaw.com, rodonnell@vklaw.com, and
`
`avolpe@vklaw.com.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Patent and Trademark Office to charge the
`
`
`
`
`credit card provided for the fees set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review. The Office is authorized to charge any fee deficiency, or
`
`credit any overpayment, to Deposit Account No. 220493.
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS OF INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104
`
`A. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner hereby certifies pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) that the ‘501
`
`Patent is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the claims of the ‘501
`
`Patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`B. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b) AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`
`1. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS UNDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)
`2
`
`3032825-4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1), Petitioner requests that each of the
`
`Challenged Claims (i.e., claims 1-20) be found unpatentable.
`
`2. IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIFIC STATUTORY
`GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b)(2)
`
`
`a. PRIOR ART PATENTS AND PRINTED
`PUBLICATIONS
`
`
` Petitioner relies upon the following, copies of which are filed herewith:
`
`
`
`1. U.S. Patent No. 3,223,098 to Dole (“Dole”) (Ex. 1003);
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 2,948,287 to Rupert (“Rupert”) (Ex. 1006);
`
`3. The Graco Pack ‘N Play Model No. 386-11-01 Owner’s Manual (©2001)
`
`(“Graco”) (Ex. 1004);
`
`4. The Century Fold-n-Go Care Center Manual (January 1998) (“Century”)
`
`(Ex. 1005);
`
`5. Certified copy of the publication of Tyco’s Sesame Street Cozy Quilt
`
`Gym (“Tyco”), which was taken from the Declaration of Denny Conley
`
`and accompanying Exhibits filed on July 18, 1995 in a litigation styled,
`
`Tyco Industries, Inc. v. TinyLove, LTD and The Maya Group, Inc, (D.N.J.
`
`3032825-4
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`1995) (No. 95-1135) 1 (Ex. 1009); see also Declaration of Max. S.
`
`Morgan (Ex. 1012).
`
`Dole, Rupert, Graco, and Century were of record in the prosecution of the
`
`‘501 Patent, but Tyco was not of record.
`
`
`
`Each of the prior art patents and publications qualifies as prior art under
`
`(pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 102(b), and/or 102(e).
`
`b. EXPERT AFFIDAVIT
`
`
`
`As further support for the Specific Statutory Grounds, Petitioner submits the
`
`affidavit of Mr. Jerome J. Drobinski (“Drobinski Aff.,” Ex. 1010), which explains
`
`how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand and apply the art. Mr.
`
`Drobinski is highly qualified to analyze the pertinent prior art and explain how it
`
`renders the Challenged Claims unpatentable. His more than twenty-seven (27)
`
`years of experience in the juvenile products industry includes specific experience
`
`in designing and developing play yards, bassinets, and play yard and bassinet
`
`accessories. (Drobinski Aff. ¶¶ 4-10; see also. Ex. 1011).
`
`3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE
`
`
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review based on the Grounds below:
`
`Ground 1:
`Claims 14, 19, and 20 are anticipated by Dole under § 102.
`
`1 This litigation is the subject of a reported decision, Tyco Industries, Inc. v. Tiny
`
`Love, LTD, 914 F. Supp. 1068 (1996) (“Tyco litigation”).
`
`3032825-4
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Ground 2:
`
`Claims 14 and 19 are anticipated by Rupert under § 102.
`
`Ground 3:
`
`Claims 1-13, 15, 16 and 18 are obvious over Dole in view of
`
`Graco under § 103.
`
`Ground 4:
`
`Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 12 and 13 are obvious over Tyco in view of
`
`Graco under § 103.
`
`Ground 5:
`
`Claims 2-5, 8 and 11 are obvious over Tyco in view of Graco
`
`and in further view of Dole under § 103.
`
`Ground 6:
`
`Claims 14, 19 and 20 are obvious over Tyco in view of Rupert
`
`under § 103.
`
`Ground 7:
`
`Claims 15-18 are obvious over Tyco in view of Rupert and in
`
`further view of Century under § 103.
`
`
`
`This Petition demonstrates that each Challenged Claim is unpatentable and
`
`that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the Challenged Claims.
`
`See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`V. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`
`
`Some Challenged Claims are unpatentable because they are anticipated
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102. “To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose
`
`every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” See, e.g.,
`
`In re Schreiber, 128 F. 3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[A]nticipation by inherent
`
`disclosure is appropriate only when the reference discloses prior art that must
`
`3032825-4
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`necessarily include the unstated limitation ....” Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewater
`
`Servs., Inc., 290 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`
`
`Other Challenged Claims are unpatentable because they would have been
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
`
`[because] the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter
`pertains.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
`
`In KSR, the Supreme Court provided an “expansive and flexible” approach
`
`to the issue of obviousness consistent with the “broad inquiry” set forth in Graham
`
`v. John Deere. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415 (citing Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 17
`
`(1966)). The Court noted that, a person of ordinary skill in the art is “a person of
`
`ordinary creativity, not an automaton” and “in many cases a person of ordinary
`
`skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like the pieces of a
`
`puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21.2
`
`2 A person of ordinary skill in the art for the ‘501 patent would have at least an
`
`associate degree and 2 years of experience designing juvenile products, or the
`
`equivalent thereof in education and industry experience. One of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have substantial familiarity with competitor designs and industry
`
`developments. (Drobinski Aff. ¶ 17).
`
`3032825-4
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In KSR, the Court stated “[t]he combination of familiar elements according
`
`to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
`
`predictable results.” Id. at 416. Further, “[i]f a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`can implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, §103
`
`likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. With respect to obviousness, the key
`
`inquiry is whether an “improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art
`
`elements according to their established functions.” Id.
`
`
`
`Applying the above standards to this Petition, the Board should find each of
`
`the Challenged Claims unpatentable.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘501 PATENT
`
`
`
`The ‘501 Patent is generally directed to an infant play gym, play yard, and
`
`bassinet. (‘501 Pat., Col. 1, ll. 20-67; Col. 2, ll. 1-4.). In particular, the ‘501 Patent
`
`is directed to connecting a play gym to a floor mat and concepts relating to
`
`positioning the play gym within a play yard and bassinet. (‘501 Pat., Abstract).
`
`The play gym has a hub and leg framework (see, e.g., ‘501 Pat., Figs. 1, 3, 4) that
`
`has been long known in the art. As detailed below, the ‘501 Patent merely applies
`
`basic prior art components in obvious ways.
`
`A. PRIORITY AND CLAIMS OF THE ‘501 PATENT
`
`The ‘501 Patent has three independent claims (claims 1, 9, and 14) and a
`
`total of 20 claims. The ‘501 Patent is a continuation of U.S. patent application No.
`
`3032825-4
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`12/062,670, filed on April 4, 2008, and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,257,229, which is
`
`a continuation of U.S. patent application No. 10/725, 071, filed on Dec. 1, 2003,
`
`and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,376,993, which is a continuation of U.S. patent
`
`application No. 10/431,079, filed on May 7, 2003, now abandoned. (‘501 Patent,
`
`Col. 1, ll. 6-11). U.S. Patent No. 7,376,993 is subject to a current inter partes
`
`reexamination proceeding, Reexamination Control No. 95/000,514.
`
`B. THE ADMITTED PRIOR ART IN THE ‘501 PATENT
`
`
`
`As admitted by the ‘501 Patent, portable play yards provided with portable
`
`bassinets and mats with an over-arching play gym were well known prior to the
`
`‘501 Patent and its parent applications. (‘501 Pat., Col. 1, ll. 26-67; accord,
`
`Drobinski Aff. ¶ 24, 25). The ‘501 Patent acknowledges that prior art play yards
`
`“typically include a frame, a fabric enclosure supported by the frame, and a
`
`removable floor board or mat.” (‘501 Pat., Col. 1, ll. 26-29; accord, Drobinski Aff.
`
`¶ 22). 3 The ‘501 Patent also admits that prior art bassinets are “typically
`
`suspended within the top of the play yard by hooking the bassinet to the upper rails
`
`of the play yard frame [] permitting the bassinet to extend downward into the
`
`enclosure of the play yard” and “may have substantially the same size as the play
`
`yard enclosure (i.e., substantially the same width and length).” (‘501 Pat., Col. 1, ll.
`
`3 In the '501 Patent, the terms “floor mat” and “floor board” are equivalent and
`
`interchangable.” (‘501 Pat., Col. 3, ll. 26-27).
`
`3032825-4
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`37-46; accord, Drobinski Aff. ¶ 23). The ‘501 Patent provides that “[t]he floor mat
`
`of the play yard may be used as the floor of the play yard and/or the bassinet.”
`
`(‘501 Pat., Col. 1, ll. 54-55; accord Drobinski Aff.¶ 24).
`
`
`
`With respect to play gyms, the ‘501 Patent admits to and provides a detailed
`
`description of “a known prior art device”. (‘501 Pat., Col. 1, ll. 61-62; accord,
`
`Drobinski Aff. ¶ 26). The “known prior art device” is described as “a play gym
`
`having two flexible arches for suspending objects such as toys or the like is
`
`coupled to the corners of a rectangular mat via snaps or the like. The arches cross
`
`and are snapped to one another roughly above the middle of the mat.” (‘501 Pat.,
`
`Col. 1, ll. 61-66; accord Drobinski Aff. ¶ 26).
`
`C. THE EMBODIMENTS OF THE ‘501 PATENT
`
`
`
`The ‘501 Patent describes and claims known prior art devices (i.e., a play
`
`yard, a bassinet, and a play gym) positioned within one another. As shown in Fig. 1
`
`(below), one embodiment is simply “an example play gym 10 mounted to an
`
`example bassinet 12, which is, in turn, mounted to an example portable play yard
`
`14.” (‘501 Pat., Col. 2, ll. 36-38; see also Drobinski Aff. ¶ 27). The play gym mat
`
`is described as being separate and distinct from the bassinet and play yard and
`
`removable, thus serving the same purpose when placed inside the play yard or on
`
`another surface such as a floor, as shown in alternate embodiments depicted in Figs.
`
`1 and 2 (below). (‘501 Pat., Col. 2, ll. 40-53).
`
`3032825-4
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. PLAY YARDS AND BASSINETS OF THE ‘501 PATENT
`
`
`
`The ‘501 Patent does not describe the play yard with any specificity. In fact,
`
`the play yard may simply be a prior art play yard “constructed like any of the
`
`portable play yards sold by such companies as Kolcraft Enterprises, Graco
`
`Children’s Products, Evenflo, Cosco, etc.” (‘501 Pat., Col. 2, ll. 60-62). Similarly,
`
`the bassinet may simply be a prior art bassinet “constructed like any of the
`
`bassinets sold by such companies as Kolcraft Enterprises, Graco Children’s
`
`Products, Evenflo, Cosco, etc.” (‘501 Pat., Col. 3, ll. 3-5).
`
`2. THE FLOOR MAT OF THE ‘501 PATENT
`
`
`
`The ‘501 Patent describes the floor mat as being dimensioned for use in both
`
`the play yard and the bassinet. (‘501 Pat., Col. 3, ll. 15-25). The floor mat is
`
`described as being either a completely flexible mat made of a soft material (e.g.,
`
`3032825-4
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`foam, cloth, or plastic) or a partially rigid mat (e.g., including a pad or multiple
`
`solid boards). (‘501 Pat. Col. 3, ll. 26-52). This is consistent with floor mats used
`
`in either the floor of the play yard and/or the bassinet. See Drobinski Aff. ¶ 24. The
`
`‘501 Patent provides that the floor mat may be removably secured in the bassinet
`
`or play yard with “any suitable fasteners” such as Velcro strips, or by gravity alone.
`
`(‘501 Pat., Col. 3, ll. 53-58).
`
`3. THE PLAY GYM OF THE ‘501 PATENT
`
`
`
`The play gym is generally described and depicted in Figs. 1-9 as including a
`
`hub and four flexible legs that form an arch over the floor mat. (‘501 Pat., Col. 3, ll.
`
`59-67; Col. 4, ll. 1-2). In particular, the legs are described as being pivotably
`
`coupled to a hub in a series of slots for movement between a stored (parallel)
`
`position to an extended position (radially outward). (‘501 Pat., Col. 4, ll. 13-28).
`
`
`
`The ‘501 Patent is focused on connecting the play gym to a bassinet or play
`
`yard in one mode and connecting the play gym to a mat in another mode. (‘501 Pat.
`
`Col. 2, ll. 46-58; accord, Drobinski Aff. ¶ 27). The play gym, when not attached to
`
`the floor mat, may be coupled directly to the play yard or bassinet by connectors,
`
`which are described as “fabric pockets 50 which are sewn or otherwise fastened
`
`adjacent to the corners of the bassinet 12 and/or the play yard 14.” (‘501 Pat., Col.
`
`5, ll. 10-22; see also Figs. 1, 6). Alternatively, the play yard or bassinet may be
`
`without connectors, and each are described as simply receiving the play gym by
`
`3032825-4
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`the placement of the play gym within either of the play yard or bassinet when the
`
`play gym is coupled to the floor mat. (‘501 Pat., Col. 5, ll. 50-59). The floor mat
`
`may simply be maintained in place by gravity. (‘501 Pat. Col. 3, ll. 56-58).
`
`
`
`The ‘501 Patent provides that the play gym may be attached to the floor mat
`
`by either pivoting or non-pivoting connectors. (‘501 Pat., Col. 5, ll. 53-59). The
`
`non-pivoting connectors are described as being “located within the perimeter of the
`
`mat and accessible from the top of the mat”. (‘501 Pat., Col. 5, ll. 53-56). The
`
`pivoting connectors are described as a plate defining an aperture that receives the
`
`respective feet and ankles of the respective legs of the play gym in order to couple
`
`the play gym to the floor mat. (‘501 Pat.. Col. 5, ll. 60-67; Col. 6, ll. 1-17). A slot
`
`within the respective apertures provides a channel for the foot. (‘501 Pat., Col. 6,
`
`ll. 9-15).
`
`
`
`The proclaimed purpose of a pivoting connector is to allow the connector to
`
`be pivoted beneath the floor mat, so it does not interfere with the play yard or the
`
`bassinet when the floor mat is placed within either of them. (‘501 Pat., Col. 6, ll.
`
`18-41).
`
`
`
`As demonstrated below, the claimed features were disclosed repeatedly in
`
`the art well before the ‘501 Patent’s priority date of May 7, 2003.
`
`
`
`
`
`3032825-4
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A claim subjected to inter partes review is given its “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The broadest
`
`reasonable construction is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
`
`language. See In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Claim terms
`
`that lack a definition in the specification are also given a broad interpretation. In
`
`re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “There is a
`
`‘heavy presumption’ that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.”
`
`Xilinx, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2013-00029, Paper 49 at *6 (PTAB
`
`March 10, 2014) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359,
`
`1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Applying the standard required in this proceeding, the
`
`claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification and as commonly understood by those of ordinary skill in the art.4
`
`VIII. SUMMARY OF REFERENCES
`
`A. Dole
`
`Dole, entitled “Collapsible Shelter Construction”, issued on December 14,
`
`1965, and discloses a tent structure comprising a hub, legs, and a floor mat, all of
`
`4 One skilled in the art would understand the claim terms to be used in their usual
`
`manner and would interpret them according to their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`(Drobinski Aff. ¶ 32.)
`
`3032825-4
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`which are interconnected (“Dole’s assembly”). (Ex. 1003, Fig. 1 (below)). One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would recognize Dole’s assembly as being suitable for use
`
`as a play gym frame. (Drobinski Aff. ¶ 35.)
`
`
`
`Dole addresses the shortcomings of prior art frame structures that include
`
`assemblies having individual parts that must be separated prior to folding and are
`
`susceptible to being misplaced or lost. (Ex. 1003, Col. 1, ll. 10-31). Dole solves
`
`these problems with “...a sectioned exterior frame-work, the individual sections of
`
`which remain interconnected whether in set-up, collapsed, or folded condition.” (Id.
`
`at Col. 1, ll. 37-40, Figs. 1, 4, and 5). In addition, Dole discloses (id at Col., 5, ll.
`
`32-43) connecting the frame work to a floor mat as illustrated in Fig. 2 (below),
`
`and folding the framework into a storage position on the multiple pivotal axes
`
`joined to the hub (id. at Col. 5, ll. 1-26) as illustrated in Fig. 4 (below).
`
`3032825-4
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Graco
`
`This owner’s manual for the Graco Pack ‘N Play® play yard and bassinet
`
`has a 2001 copyright date. (Ex. 1004, pg. 1). Graco discloses setup and use of the
`
`play yard along with a floor mat or mattress that is placed onto a floor of the play
`
`yard. (Id., pg. 7, Figs. 5-8). As shown in Fig. 8, the underside of the floor mat or
`
`mattress includes a fastener at its perimeter edge, described as a VELCRO® strap
`
`that is threaded through a slot on the play yard floor and attached to the underside
`
`of the unit. (Id., pg. 7, Fig. 8). Graco teaches placement of the floor mat in a
`
`bassinet. (Id., pg. 19-20, Figs. 43-50). Graco also teaches that a toy bar can be
`
`suspended above the play yard. (Id, Figs. 29-32).
`
`C. Century
`
` This Manual for the Century Fold-n-Go™ Care Center play yard and
`
`bassinet has a January 1998 date in the lower left hand corner of the cover page.
`15
`
`3032825-4
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1005, pg. 1). Century includes set up and use instructions of a play yard or
`
`bassinet with a floor mat. (Id., pgs. 2-5). The floor mat is secured to the play yard
`
`by “passing [the] attachment strap through [a] hole in [the] bottom of play yard
`
`floor and securing attachment strap to underside of play yard.” (Id., Fig. 8, pg. 4).
`
`Century also teaches a bassinet where the floor mat is placed in the bassinet to
`
`create the structure of the bassinet. (Id., Figs. 6-8, pg. 6).
`
`D. Rupert
`
`
`
`Rupert, entitled “Quickly-Erectable Folding Portable Shelter,” issued on
`
`August 9, 1960, discloses a portable framework having legs coupled to a hub at
`
`one end and a floor mat at another end. (Ex. 1006, Fig. 1 (below)).
`
`
`
`Rupert teaches that the legs are pivotally mounted to a hub with radial slots
`
`(Id., Col. 2, ll. 40-69), to be erected above a floor mat, as shown in Fig. 1 (above),
`
`or folded with the legs positioned parallel to one another as shown in Figs. 4 and 5
`
`
`
`(below).
`
`3032825-4
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E. Tyco
`
`
`
`The Product at issue in the Tyco litigation was Tyco’s Sesame Street Cozy
`
`Quilt Gym ("Tyco"). The Declaration of Denny Conley and its accompanying
`
`exhibits, depicting Tyco’s Sesame Street Cozy Quilt Gym, were available to the
`
`public. Exhibit 1012 (“Morgan Decl.”) Additional documents from the ligation
`
`are: (1) Exhibit 1007 (Answer to Complaint, filed May 8, 1995) that included a
`
`true copy of a Tyco catalog page featuring the Tyco product; and, (2) Exhibit 1008
`
`(Affidavit of Ronald Brawer, filed June 16, 1995) that included a copy of the
`
`February issue of Juvenile Merchandizing magazine featuring the Tyco product.
`
`Tyco is a play gym with legs that form a pair of arches crossing one another at a
`
`point located above the center of the floor mat. (Ex. 1009, pg. 41 (below)). Tyco
`
`also has loops in the mid portions of the legs for hanging toys above the mat. (Ex.
`
`1009, pg. 41 (below); see also pg. 40).
`
`3032825-4
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Each leg of Tyco includes a fastener that couples to a fabric loop connector
`
`attached on the underside of the floor mat. (Id., pg. 39 (below)).
`
`
`
`3032825-4
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IX. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`
`Petitioner now details each ground of unpatentability of the Challenged
`
`Claims:
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 14, 19, and 20 are anticipated by Dole under § 102.
`
`
`
`As shown in the claim charts below and confirmed by the Drobinski Aff.,
`
`Dole discloses each specific limitation of claims 14, 19, and 20, and therefore
`
`anticipates claims 14, 19, and 20 of the ‘501 Patent. (Drobinski Aff. ¶¶ 50-53).
`
`Claim 14 of the
`‘501 Patent
`14. An
`apparatus
`comprising: a play
`gym having a leg
`coupled to a hub,
`
`Disclosure in Dole
`
`Dole discloses a device comprising a hub and leg frame
`work. Dole at Fig. 1.
`
`The frame (10) includes legs (23-26) “coupled” to a hub
`(13). Dole at Fig. 1, 5, 6; Dole at Col. 2, ll. 49-54 (“[A]
`collapsible frame 10 ... includes four elongated legs 23, 24,
`25 and 26 and two peak bars 20a and 20b, all of which
`project or depend from a junction unit 13.”)
`
`the hub having a
`cavity and the leg
`having a first end
`and a second end;
`
`
`Dole teaches the hub (13) having a cavity (e.g., 15b, 15c)
`and the legs (23, 24, 25 and 26) have first ends (e.g., “upper
`ends of sections 27a and 27b of legs 23 and 24”, Dole at
`Col. 3, ll. 62) and second ends (e.g., “the foot of each leg”,
`Dole at Col. 5, ll. 34). See Dole at Figs. 1, 5.
`
`3032825-4
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`a first fastener
`coupled to the first
`end of the leg to
`attach the leg to the
`hub and
`
`
`Dole teaches the first ends of the legs (i.e., upper ends of the
`legs (23-26)) having fasteners (reduced diameters) that are
`each in telescopic engagement with openings (14b, 14c,
`15b, 15c) of the hub (13) to attach the legs to the hub. Dole
`at Figs. 1, 5.
`
`a second
`fastener extending
`from the second
`end of the leg,
`
`
`Dole teaches the second end of the leg (e.g., 31a) includes a
`second fastener (a foot section (32)). Dole at Fig. 2. See also
`Dole at Fig. 1; Col. 4, ll. 36-41. (“Subtending the bottom
`ends of legs 23, 24, 25 and 26 and telescopically and
`coaxially engaged therein ... are feet 32....”)
`
`the first fastener
`to enable the first
`end of the leg to be
`positionable
`relative to the
`
`The upper end of the legs (23-26) each have a reduced
`diameter that is in telescopic engagement with openings
`(14b, 14c, 15b, 15c) of the hub (13) to allow the legs to be
`“positionable” relative to the cavity (openings) of the hub.
`Figs. 1, 5, 6.
`
`3032825-4
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`cavity of the hub;
`and
`
`a floor mat
`removably
`couplable to the
`play gym
`
`the floor mat
`defining an upper
`surface and a
`bottom surface, the
`bottom surface
`having a first
`connector that
`includes an
`opening to receive
`the fastener of the
`leg when the play
`gym is coupled to
`the floor mat.
`
`
`
`Claim 19 of the
`‘501 Patent
`19. The
`apparatus of claim
`14, the first
`
`3032825-4
`
`
`Dole discloses a floor portion (11) having an upper and
`lower surface is “couplable” to the frame (10). Dole at Figs.
`1, 2; Col. 4, ll. 36-55; Col. 5, ll. 27-44.
`
`Dole teaches that the floor portion (11) has an upper surface
`and a bottom surface having a first connector (e.g., tab
`(12a)) that includes an opening (42) to receive the fastener
`(foot section (32)) of the leg (23) when the leg (23) is
`coupled to the floor portion (11). Dole at Figs. 1, 2; Col. 5,
`ll. 27-44.
`
`
`Disclosure in Dole
`
`Tab (12a) is positioned “adjacent” to a perimeter edge of the
`mat (11). Dole at Figs. 1, 2
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`connector of the
`floor mat is
`positioned adjacent
`a perimeter edge of
`the floor mat.
`
`
`
`Claim 20 of the
`‘501 Patent
`20. The
`apparatus of claim
`14, wherein the
`first connector is
`pivotally coupled
`to the floor mat.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Disclosure in Dole
`
`Dole inherently teaches the connector (e.g., tab (12a)) is
`pivotally coupled to the floor (11). Dole at Fig 2; (Drobinski
`Aff. p. 20).
`
`Dole teaches that the tabs extend from and are appended to the floor, and the
`
`floor is described as being constructed of neoprene coated nylon. (Ex. 1003, Col. 2,
`
`ll. 44-48 and Col. 5, ll. 47-50 and Fig. 2). Based on the fact that neoprene coate