Page 1
`
`2013 WL 8595307 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd.)
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.)
`
`*1 SCHOTT GEMTRON CORP. PETITIONER
`v.
`SSW HOLDING CO., INC. PATENT OWNER
`
`Case IPR2013-00358
`Patent 8,286,561 B2
`
`November 4, 2013
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Marshall J. Schmitt
`
`Gilberto E. Espinoza
`Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
`mjschmitt@michaelbest.com
`geespinoza@michaelbest.com
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael P. Furmanek
`
`Jennifer Burnette
`MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP
`mfurmanek@marshallip.com
`jburnette@marshallip.com
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and MIRIAM L. QUINN
`Administrative Patent Judges
`BRADEN
`Administrative Patent Judge
`
`DECISION
`
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`SCHOTT Gemtron Corporation (“Schott”) filed an Amended Petition (Paper 5, ““Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of
`claims 1, 13, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 8,286,561 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the '561 Patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 et seq.
`
`© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`KOLCRAFT EXHIBIT 2006-1
`Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.
`IPR2014-01053
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`In response, Patent Owner SSW Holding Company, Inc. (“SSW Holding”) filed a preliminary response (Paper 12,
`“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows:
`THRESHOLD -- The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determ-
`ines 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 the Petition and Patent Owner's preliminary response, we conclude that Schott has established a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on showing unpatentability with respect to at least one of the challenged
`claims. Accordingly, we authorize an inter partes review to be instituted as to claims 1, 13, and 25 of the '561 Patent.
`
`Schott indicates that the '561 Patent is involved in an action captioned SSW Holding Co., Inc. v. Schott Gemtron Corp.,
`No. 3:12-cv-00661 (W.D. Ky.). Pet. 52.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`B. The '561 Patent
`
`*2 The '561 Patent describes shelving, such as shelving adapted for use in refrigerators and having a top surface with a
`hydrophobic surface arranged in a spill containment pattern. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 15-18, col. 2, ll. 1-4. The spill contain-
`ment pattern is intended to act as a barrier to prevent spilled liquid from spilling onto other surfaces. Id. at col. 11, ll.
`28-37. An example of a spill containment pattern is shown in Figure 3 of the '561 Patent, reproduced below:
`
`Figure 3 illustrates a preferred embodiment that includes shelving with a spill containment pattern consisting of a hydro-
`phobic surface in the pattern of a frame-like border. Id. at col. 2, ll. 26-30, col. 3, ll. 43-45. The border defines the bound-
`aries of a single non-hydrophobic spill containment area therein. Id. at 3, ll. 39-46.
`
`C. Exemplary Claim
`
`© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`KOLCRAFT EXHIBIT 2006-2
`Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.
`IPR2014-01053
`
`

`

`Page 3
`
`Challenged claims 1, 13, and 25 are reproduced as follows:
`
`1. A shelf assembly comprising:
`a shelf panel having a generally flat top surface which is capable of supporting articles which may be placed on said
`shelf panel;
`a hydrophobic surface applied in a spill containment pattern on the said top surface;
`wherein the majority of the surface area of said top surface of the shelf panel is not hydrophobic, thereby providing
`one or more non-hydrophobic central portions bounded by said spill containment pattern of said hydrophobic sur-
`face.
`13. The shelf assembly of claim 1, wherein the hydrophobic surface comprises:
`a ceramic frit layer adjacent to and bonded to the top surface of said shelf panel; and
`a hydrophobic compound coated over the ceramic frit layer.
`25. A method of manufacturing a shelf capable of containing liquid spills thereon comprising:
`providing a panel having a generally flat top surface which is capable of supporting articles which may be placed on
`said panel;
`applying a hydrophobic surface arranged in a spill containment pattern generally in the plane of said top surface;
`leaving the majority of the surface area of said top surface of the panel non-hydrophobic, thereby providing one or
`more non-hydrophobic central portions bounded by the spill containment pattern of the hydrophobic surface.
`
`Schott relies upon the following references:
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Angros
`Huang
`Baumann
`Sikka
`Picken
`
`Sept. 7, 1999
`U.S. 5,948,685
`Mar. 5, 2002
`U.S. 6,352,758 B1
`Mar. 29, 2005
`U.S. 6,872,441 B2
`Jan. 12, 2012
`U.S. 2012/0009396 A1
`Apr. 27, 2006
`WO 2006/044641 A2
`E. Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`
`*3 Schott alleges the following grounds of unpatentability (see Pet. 51):
`
`Reference(s)
`Angros
`Sikka
`Angros and Picken
`Picken and Sikka
`Picken and Huang
`Angros and Baumann
`Sikka and Baumann
`Picken, Huang, and Baumann
`Picken and Baumann
`
`Basis
`§ 102(a)
`§ 102(e)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`Claims Challenged
`1, 25
`1, 25
`1, 25
`1, 25
`1, 25
`13
`13
`13
`1, 13, 25
`
`© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`KOLCRAFT EXHIBIT 2006-3
`Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.
`IPR2014-01053
`
`

`

`Page 4
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of
`the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
`Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Also, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclos-
`ure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor may rebut that presumption by
`providing a definition of the term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen
`, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`*4 Neither Schott nor SSW Holding contends that any special definition has been provided in the specification for any
`claim term. We conclude the same. Schott provides its interpretations for two claim elements: “shelf panel” (Pet. 14) and
`“generally in the plane of said top surface” (id. at 14-15). SSW Holding provides its interpretations for those two claim
`elements, as well as for the following claim elements: “spill containment pattern,” “shelf assembly,” “method of manu-
`facturing a shelf,” “shelf panel having a generally flat top surface,” and “majority of the surface area of said top surface
`of the shelf panel is not hydrophobic.”Prelim. Resp. 7-22.
`
`1. “Shelf Panel”
`Schott contends that “shelf panel,” in the context of the '561 Patent, should be construed as a “piece of material with a
`top surface intended to be positioned horizontally.” Pet. 14. SSW Holding contends that Schott's proposed construction is
`unreasonable because it is much broader than that contemplated by the '561 Patent specification. Prelim. Resp. 7. SSW
`Holding reasons that the broadest reasonable construction standard cannot be applied in a vacuum, but rather must be ap-
`plied through the eyes of a person having ordinary skill in the art and in light of the specification. Prelim. Resp. 8-9. Ac-
`cording to SSW Holding, “the specification of the '561 Patent only refers to types of shelves that are configured to sup-
`port articles of a particular size and weight such as conventional household or commercial goods.” Id. at 12.
`
`The specification of the '561 Patent never defines “shelf panel,” but does give several examples of shelf panels or
`shelving, stating:
`The invention relates to shelving and the like, e.g., countertops and table tops, including shelving which may be ad-
`apted for use with refrigerators.
`Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 15-18.
`In the preferred embodiments, the term ‘shelving and/or the like,’ ‘ ‘shelving,’ ‘shelf,’ or ‘shelf and/or the like’ en-
`compasses shelves and articles whose top surfaces [sic] such as pantry shelves, countertops, stovetops, cook-tops,
`and table tops. Certain embodiments are especially advantageous for use in refrigerator and freezer shelving.
`
`Id. at col. 3, ll. 33-38.
`A preferred embodiment shelf may be incorporated into a shelving assembly with a shelf-supporting mechanism,
`such as a bracket, and a shelf, which is capable of supporting articles on its top surface.
`
`*5 Id. at col. 3, ll. 53-56.
`The shelves described herein can be adapted for use as refrigerator or freezer shelves, for example.
`
`Id. at col. 4, ll. 5-7.
`
`SSW Holding argues that “[t]he specification does not at all refer to any other structures outside of this field such as, for
`
`© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`KOLCRAFT EXHIBIT 2006-4
`Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.
`IPR2014-01053
`
`

`

`Page 5
`
`example, small analytic plates, microscope slides, etc. that include no weight-bearing function whatsoever and have no
`connection to shelving applications.”Prelim. Resp. 12.
`
`SSW Holding then relies on a dictionary definition of “shelf,” purportedly to reflect the ordinary meaning of the term at
`the time of the invention (i.e., at least as early as June 27, 2008 according to SSW Holding).Id. at 11. Merriam-Webster's
`Collegiate Dictionary defines “shelf” as “a thin flat usu[ally] long and narrow piece of material (as wood) fastened hori-
`zontally (as on a wall) at a distance from the floor to hold objects.”Ex. 2002.
`
`SSW Holding contends that in light of (i) the specification, (ii) the view of one of ordinary skill in the art, and (iii) the
`proffered dictionary definition, the claim term “shelf panel” should be construed as “a piece of material with a top sur-
`face intended to be positioned horizontally and of sufficient size and integrity to support articles conventionally stored in
`pantries, on counters, on stovetops, on cook-tops, on table tops, in refrigerators and freezers, and the like.”Prelim. Resp.
`13. SSW Holding argues that such a construction does not import limitations from the specification. Id.
`
`We decline to adopt Schott's proposed construction due to it being overly broad. However, we also decline to adopt SSW
`Holding's proposed construction, because it improperly imports several limitations from the specification. Rather, consid-
`ering the dictionary definition of “shelf” and the usage of ““shelf” and “shelving” in the specification, as discussed
`above, we determine for the purposes of this decision that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “shelf panel” is “a
`piece of material positioned horizontally at a distance above some other surface to hold objects.”
`
`2. “Generally in the Plane of Said Top Surface”
`According to Schott, “generally in the plane of said top surface” should be construed as “all or a portion of the hydro-
`phobic surface extending a small distance above the level of the top surface of the shelf panel that is not readily notice-
`able to the naked eye.”Pet. 14-15.
`
`SSW Holding contends that the plain meaning of the phrase “generally in the plane of said top surface” is supported by
`and described in the specification, which states that “[t]he reference to the fact that the hydrophobic surface is generally
`in the plane of the top surface of the shelf is intended to include surfaces and surface treatments, all or a portion of which
`may extend a small distance above the level of the top surface of the shelf which is not readily noticeable to the naked
`eye.”Prelim. Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 9, ll. 54-59). However, SSW Holding then contends that the proper construc-
`tion for the disputed phrase is “a thin hydrophobic layer that is disposed generally coplanar with the top surface such that
`any variation in height with the top surface is not readily noticeable to the naked eye.”Id.
`
`*6 We decline to adopt SSW Holding's proposed construction. Instead, for the purposes of this decision the Board adopts
`Schott's proposed construction, which is supported by the specification.
`
`3. “Majority of the Surface Area of Said Top Surface of the Shelf Panel is Not Hydrophobic”
`According to SSW Holding, the phrase “majority of the surface area of said top surface of the shelf panel is not hydro-
`phobic” should be given its plain meaning, and that the plain meaning is “the surface area of the non-hydrophobic por-
`tion is greater than the surface area of the hydrophobic portion.”Prelim. Resp. 20. Schott does not address this claim lim-
`itation. For the purposes of this decision, the Board agrees with and adopts SSW Holding's proposed construction.
`
`4. Remaining Claim Terms
`All other terms in the challenged claims are given their ordinary and customary meaning and need not be further con-
`strued at this time.
`
`B. Claims 1 and 25- Obviousness over Angros and Picken
`
`© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`KOLCRAFT EXHIBIT 2006-5
`Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.
`IPR2014-01053
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
`Schott alleges that claims 1 and 25 of the '561 Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Angros and Picken.
`Pet. 22-23, 33-34. SSW Holding contends that Angros and Picken are not analogous art, and, therefore, the two refer-
`ences should not be combined because such a combination would not constitute the mere substitution of one element for
`another in the same field. Prelim. Resp. 40.
`
`For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that Schott has made a sufficient showing that there is a reasonable likeli-
`hood that it will prevail with respect to claims 1 and 25 on the ground that those claims would have been obvious over
`Angros and Picken.
`
`Angros
`Angros describes an analytic plate, such as a microscope slide or a diagnostic plate, having a containment border for con-
`taining a liquid. Ex. 1005, Abstract. Angros discloses that the containment border can be a hydrophobic material applied
`to the plate surface in a bordered pattern to confine liquid that is applied to the plate within the area surrounded by the
`border. Id. at col. 1, ll. 45-48. According to Angros, the hydrophobic containment border “is substantially transparent and
`is substantially flush with the surface of the slide or plate and which covers only a portion of the surface of the slide or
`plate.”Id. at col. 2, ll. 29-32.
`
`Figure 1A of Angros is reproduced below:
`
`Figure 1A illustrates microscope slide 10 with containment border 16. Id. at col. 2, ll. 39-45. Containment border 16 sur-
`rounds containment area 18 of the upper surface 12 of slide 10, and prevents spreading, leakage, or migration of liquid
`from containment area 18. Id. at col. 2, ll. 49-58. Figure 1B of Angros is reproduced below:
`
`*7 Figure 1B illustrates a side view of an analytic plate with a containment border, a top surface 12, and a lower surface
`14. Angros discloses that “border 16 forms a molecular layer when dry and therefore is substantially flush (level) with
`the upper surface 12 of the slide 10. The border 16 is, therefore, not raised above the upper surface 12 to a degree that is
`visible to the naked eye.”Ex. 1005, col. 3, ll. 3-7.
`
`Picken
`Picken describes a shelf assembly for use in a refrigerator. Ex. 1009, Abstract. Figure 1 of Picken is reproduced below:
`
`© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`KOLCRAFT EXHIBIT 2006-6
`Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.
`IPR2014-01053
`
`

`

`Page 7
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a shelf assembly 10 with a generally flat shelf panel 12 and a pair of support rails 16. Id. The shelf
`panel may include a curved, turned, or bent edge on the upper surface of the shelf to limit spillage of liquid over the edge
`of the shelf panel. Ex. 1009 ¶ 4. Figure 13 of Picken is reproduced below:
`
`Figure 13 illustrates a shelf panel with a forward edge 120 that curves upward to provide a spill-proof edge. Id. ¶ 55. An
`alternative embodiment disclosed by Picken is shown in Figure 17, reproduced below:
`
`Figure 17 illustrates shelf panel 312 that includes an upper form or guard 346--bonded, via adhesive 326, along edge re-
`gion 314 on upper surface 336 of shelf panel 312--to prevent liquid movement. Id. ¶ 57. The shelf panel may include a
`frit layer [FN1] on the upper or lower surfaces of the panel. Id. ¶¶ 6, 57, 71.
`
`Whether Angros and Picken meet the claim limitations
`Schott contends that every limitation in claims 1 and 25 of the '561 Patent are either taught or suggested by a combina-
`tion of Angros and Picken. Pet. 16-23, 29-31, 33-34, 45-46. According to Schott, both references disclose the use of a
`shelf panel with a border for spill containment and a majority of the shelf panel surface being non-hydrophobic (Pet.
`33-34 (citing Ex. 1005, col. 1, ll. 19-20, col. 2, ll. 46-62; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 8, 19, 57-59)), while Angros discloses a hydro-
`phobic surface applied in a spill containment pattern on the top surface of the shelf panel.
`
`SSW Holding asserts that Angros and Picken cannot be combined, because the references are not analogous art and,
`
`© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`KOLCRAFT EXHIBIT 2006-7
`Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.
`IPR2014-01053
`
`

`

`Page 8
`
`therefore, do not “constitute the mere substitution for one element for another in the same field.”Prelim. Resp. 40. A ref-
`erence qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed inven-
`tion. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011)Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d
`1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir.
`1992).“Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
`regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether
`the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.”Bigio, 381 F.3d
`at 1325.
`
`*8 Schott contends that Angros and Picken are analogous art because “Angros is reasonably pertinent to the problem
`faced by the Applicants of the ' 561 patent.” Pet. 22. Specifically, Schott states that “[t]he problem faced by the Angros
`inventors was the same as the problem faced by the Applicants, namely, how to contain a liquid in a predetermined area
`using a structure that is thin and does not extend significantly above the top surface of the panel.”Id. Schott reasons that
`it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify the shelf panel, as taught by Picken, with the hydrophobic
`liquid containment barrier, as taught by Angros, because “the application of the spill-containment border of Angros to
`the shelf assembly of Picken is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`functions.”Pet. 22-23. We are persuaded by Schott's reasoning regarding the references being analogous art and for the
`rationale to combine the references.
`
`SSW Holding also asserts that “even if Angros did constitute analogous art, there would have been no reasonable expect-
`ation of success that the design of Angros was scalable up to the larger appliance shelf applications disclosed in Picken,
`where the spills can be of an uncontrolled quantity, occur with uncontrolled amounts of force, and originate from any
`location across the shelf.”Prelim. Resp. 45. However, according to Schott, adding a spill-containment border as disclosed
`in Angros to the shelf assembly of Picken would be the predictable use of prior art elements used for their established
`functions. Pet. 22 (citing KSR Int'l Co. v Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)). Schott further asserts that the substitu-
`tion of one element (e.g., guard 346 of Picken) for another element known in the field (hydrophobic containment border
`of Angros) can be expected to yield predictable results. See id. at 416-17. Again, we are persuaded by Schott's reasoning.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Schott has made a sufficient showing that there is a reasonable likelihood it
`will prevail with respect to independent claims 1 and 25 as being unpatentable over Angros and Picken.
`
`C. Claim 13 -- Obviousness over Angros, Picken, and Baumann
`Schott alleges that claim 13 of the '561 Patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over (i) Angros and Baumann
`and (ii) Picken and Bauman. Pet. 51. Although Schott in its Petition does not allege, expressly, unpatentability of claim
`13 based on the combination of all three references (Angros, Picken, and Baumann), we exercise our discretion under 35
`U.S.C. § 314(a) and conclude that Schott has made a sufficient showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that claim
`13 would have been obvious based on the combination of Angros, Picken, and Baumann.
`
`Baumann
`*9 Baumann describes substrates with at least one structured hydrophobic substrate that “provides a good self-cleaning
`effect.” Ex. 1007, col. 1, ll. 9-11. In one embodiment disclosed by Baumann, the substrate is a ceramic material that is
`coated with “a composition containing a material producing a glass flux such as a glass frit and structure-forming
`particles” and that, when the ““substrate” is fired at a certain temperature, the glass flux is made hydrophobic. Id. at col.
`2, ll. 32-39. Baumann further discloses a “micro-rough layer [that] is printed by means of a printing paste containing a
`glass frit which forms a glass flux, and the structure-forming particles are applied to the still moist printing surface for
`example by powdering or dripping on, possibly followed by partial pressing of the particles into the printed surface.”Id.
`
`© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`KOLCRAFT EXHIBIT 2006-8
`Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.
`IPR2014-01053
`
`

`

`Page 9
`
`at col. 6, ll. 1-8. “The substrate thus treated is then burnt and made hydrophobic in a known manner.”Id. at col. 6, ll. 6-8.
`
`Whether Angros, Picken, and Baumann meet the claim limitations
`Claim 13 depends from claim 1, and in addition to the elements recited in claim 1, claim 13 requires (a) a ceramic frit
`layer adjacent to and bonded to the top surface of a shelf panel and (b) a hydrophobic compound coated over the ceramic
`frit layer.
`
`Schott contends that ceramic frits coated with hydrophobic surfaces were well known in the art at the time the '561 Patent
`was filed. Pet. 27. Indeed, the '561 Patent cites to Baumann as disclosing a ceramic frit. Id.; see Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll.
`36-41. According to Schott, the application of a hydrophobic surface comprising a ceramic frit and a hydrophobic com-
`pound, as described in Baumann, to form a spill-containment border, as described in Angros, would be the predictable
`use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Id. at 28 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 417). Schott then con-
`tends that, if the border described in Picken was substituted with the hydrophobic surfaces described in Baumann, a per-
`son of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the shelf assembly of claim 13 would result. Pet. 28-29 (citing Ex. 1010
`¶ 35).
`
`SSW Holding contends that any combination of Angros with Baumann is improper, because adding an intervening frit
`layer, as recited in claim 13, would be contrary to Angros' direct teaching of avoiding an intervening layer. Prelim. Resp.
`49. According to SSW Holding, Angros describes an advantage over the prior art where the Angros border does not re-
`quire any pretreatment or intervening layer between the liquid repellant coating and the slide, each of which undesirably
`increases the thickness of prior art borders. Id. at 49-50. SSW Holding concludes that “Angros clearly teaches that inter-
`vening layers between the hydrophobic [portion] and the slide are to be avoided.”Id. at 50. We disagree.
`
`*10 Angros's disclosure does not teach away because it does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the arrange-
`ment suggested by the combination of Angros and Baumann. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`Even if Angros proposes a thinner border than that suggested by the combination of Angros and Baumann, as SSW Hold-
`ing alleges, it would not render the combination nonobvious. See id.(“The prior art's mere disclosure of more than one al-
`ternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize,
`discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed . . . .”) Therefore, we are unpersuaded by SSW Holding's argu-
`ment.
`
`Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Schott has made a sufficient showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`claim 13 would have been obvious over Angros, Picken, and Baumann.
`
`D. Claims 1 and 25 -- Obviousness over Picken and Huang
`Schott alleges that claims 1 and 25 of the '561 Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Picken and Huang.
`Pet. 18-19, 36-37, 48-50. However, these alleged grounds are redundant in light of the determination that there is a reas-
`onable likelihood that the challenged claims would have been obvious over Angros and Picken.
`
`E. Claim 13- Obviousness over Picken, Huang, and Baumann
`Schott alleges that claim 13 of the '561 Patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Picken, Huang, and Bau-
`mann. Pet. 28, 41-42. However, this alleged ground is redundant in light of the determination that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the challenged claims would have been obvious over Angros, Picken, and Baumann.
`
`F. Claims 1, 13, and 25 -- Anticipation by or obviousness over Sikka
`Schott alleges that claims 1 and 25 of the '561 Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Sikka or 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 over Sikka and Picken. Pet. 24-25, 32. Schott also alleges that claim 13 of the '561 Patent is unpatentable under 35
`
`© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`KOLCRAFT EXHIBIT 2006-9
`Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.
`IPR2014-01053
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`U.S.C. § 103 over Sikka and Baumann. Pet. 39-40. However, these asserted grounds against claims 1, 13, and 25 are
`deemed redundant in light of the determination that there is a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims would
`have been obvious over (1) Angros and Picken or (2) Angros, Picken, and Baumann
`
`G. Claims 1 and 25 -- Anticipation by Angros
`*11 Schott alleges that claims 1 and 25 of the '561 Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Angros. Pet.
`31, 43. However, this asserted ground against claims 1 and 25 is deemed redundant in light of the determination that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims would have been obvious over Angros and Picken.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Schott will
`prevail in showing unpatentability of claims 1, 13, and 25 of the '561 Patent.
`
`The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of any challenged claim.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is hereby instituted as to claims 1, 13, and 25 of the '
`561 Patent for the following grounds:
`1. Claims 1 and 25 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Angros and Picken; and
`2. Claim 13 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Angros, Picken, and Baumann.
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that all other grounds raised in Schott's petition are denied;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution
`of a trial on the grounds of unpatentability authorized above; the trial commences on the entry date of this decision; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that an initial conference call with the Board is scheduled 2:00 PM Eastern Time on November
`25, 2013; the parties are directed to the Office Trial Practice Guide [FN2] for guidance in preparing for the initial confer-
`ence call, and should come prepared to discuss any proposed changes to the Scheduling Order entered herewith and any
`motions the parties anticipate filing during the trial.
`
`FN1. A frit layer is a substrate of material of glass or ceramic that is placed or printed in a pattern. Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll.
`7-13. The material can include finely ground particles. Id. at col. 6, ll. 41-59.
`
`FN2. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48765-66 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`2013 WL 8595307 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd.)
`
`END OF DOCUMENT
`
`© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`KOLCRAFT EXHIBIT 2006-10
`Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.
`IPR2014-01053
`
`