UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Applicant: Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01053
`
`Filing Date: 3/5/2013
`
`Patent No.: 8,388,501
`
`Title: Play Gyms and Methods
` of Operating the Same
`
`Artsana USA, Inc.
`
` v.
`
`Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.
`
`Trial Paralegal: Amy Kattula
`
`Attorney Doc.: KOL501IPR
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE OF PATENT OWNER
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificate of Filing: I hereby certify that this correspondence is being electronically filed with the
`USPTO on this 8th day of October, 2014.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:/Robert A. Conley/
` Robert A. Conley
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF "COUPLE", "COUPLED"
`AND "COUPLABLE" ................................................................................ 5
`
`BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF "PLAY GYM" ................. 9
`
`BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF "CONNECTOR OF THE
`FLOOR MAT IS POSITIONED ON AN UNDERSIDE OF THE FLOOR MAT",
`"SECOND PLURALITY OF CONNECTORS PROVIDED ON THE SECOND
`SURFACE OF THE FLOOR MAT" AND "FLOOR MAT DEFINING … A
`BOTTOM SURFACE … HAVING A FIRST CONNECTOR THAT INCLUDES
`AN OPENING" .......................................................................................15
`
`D.
`
`BROADEST REASONABLE
`INTERPRETATION OF "PIVOTALLY COUPLED" ......................................19
`
`III.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S INVALIDITY
`ARGUMENTS ..............................................................................................24
`
`A. GROUND 1 – DOLE DOES NOT ANTICIPATE CLAIMS 14, 19 AND 20 ......24
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Dole Was Previously Considered By The USPTO ...................24
`
`Dole Fails To Disclose All Limitations Of Claims 14, 19 Or 20
`Of The '501 Patent ....................................................................25
`
`B.
`
`GROUND 2 - RUPERT DOES NOT ANTICIPATE CLAIMS 14 AND 19 ........31
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Rupert Was Previously Considered By The USPTO ...............31
`
`Rupert Fails To Disclose All Limitations Of Claims 14 Or 19
`Of The '501 Patent ....................................................................31
`
`C.
`
`GROUND 3 – THE COMBINATION OF DOLE IN VIEW OF GRACO DOES
`NOT RENDER CLAIMS 1-13, 15, 16 AND 18 OBVIOUS ...........................35
`
`1.
`
`Dole And Graco Were Both Previously Considered By The
`USPTO ......................................................................................35
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`2.
`
`3.
`
`Dole Is Non-Analogous Art ......................................................36
`
`The Combination Of Dole In View Of Graco Fails To Teach Or
`Suggest All Limitations Of Claims 1-13, 15, 16 And 18 .........40
`
`D. GROUND 4 – THE COMBINATION OF TYCO IN VIEW OF GRACO DOES
`NOT RENDER CLAIMS 1, 6, 7, 9, 12 AND 13 OBVIOUS ..........................43
`
`1.
`
`Tyco Is Not Prior Art ................................................................43
`
`E.
`
`GROUND 5 – THE COMBINATION OF TYCO IN VIEW OF GRACO AND IN
`FURTHER VIEW OF DOLE DOES NOT RENDER CLAIMS 2-5, 8 AND 11
`OBVIOUS ..............................................................................................51
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Tyco Is Not Prior Art ................................................................51
`
`Dole Is Non-Analogous Art ......................................................51
`
`F.
`
`GROUND 6 – THE COMBINATION OF TYCO IN VIEW OF RUPERT DOES
`NOT RENDER CLAIMS 14, 19 AND 20 OBVIOUS....................................52
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Tyco Is Not Prior Art ................................................................52
`
`Rupert Is Non-Analogous Art ...................................................52
`
`G. GROUND 7 – THE COMBINATION OF TYCO IN VIEW OF RUPERT AND IN
`FURTHER VIEW OF CENTURY DOES NOT RENDER CLAIMS 15-18
`OBVIOUS ..............................................................................................56
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Tyco Is Not Prior Art ................................................................56
`
`Rupert Is Non-Analogous Art ...................................................56
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT TABLE
`
`Description
`Feb. 12, 2010 Office Action in Reexamination Control No.
`95/000,514
`US 6,109,280 to Custer
`Dec. 9, 2013 Board Decision in Reexamination Control No.
`95/000,514
`Zetec, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., IPR2014-00384, 2014 WL
`3704254 (P.T.A.B. July 23, 2014)
`Schott Gemtron Corp. v. SSW Holding Co., 2013 WL 8595307
`(P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2013)
`Schott Gemtron Corp. v. SSW Holding Co., 2014 WL 4181969
`(P.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 2014)
`Silver Peak Sys., Inc. v. Riverbed Tech., Inc., IPR-2014-00149, 2014
`WL 1784058 (P.T.A.B. May 2, 2014)
`EMC Corp. v. PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC, IPR-2013-00087,
`2013 WL 8595566 (P.T.A.B. May 17, 2013)
`Elec. Frontier Foundation v. Personal Audio, LLC, IPR2014-00070,
`2014 WL 1604334 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2014)
`
`Exhibit
`2002
`
`2003
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01053
`
`In accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, Kolcraft
`
`Enterprises, Inc. ("Kolcraft" or "Patent Owner") respectfully submits this
`
`Preliminary Response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review of claims 1-20 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,388,501 (the "'501 patent") filed by Artsana USA, Inc.
`
`("Artsana" or "Petitioner"). This Preliminary Response is timely under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.107(b) because it is being filed within three months of the mailing date of the
`
`Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Response (Paper 3), which was mailed on July 8, 2014.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In its Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,388,501 (Paper 5, hereinafter "Petition"), Petitioner alleges that various claims of
`
`the '501 patent are anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 3,223,098 to Dole ("Dole")
`
`(Ground 1 of the Petition) and U.S. Patent No. 2,948,287 to Rupert ("Rupert")
`
`(Ground 2 of the Petition). Petitioner further alleges that various claims of the '501
`
`patent are rendered obvious by five different combinations of prior art: (1) Dole in
`
`view of the Graco Pack 'N Play Model No. 386-11-01 Owner's Manual (©2001)
`
`("Graco") (Ground 3 of the Petition); (2) the alleged publication of Tyco's Sesame
`
`Street Cozy Quilt Gym ("Tyco") in view of Graco (Ground 4 of the Petition); (3)
`
`Tyco in view of Graco and in further view of Dole (Ground 5 of the Petition); (4)
`
`Tyco in view of Rupert (Ground 6 of the Petition); and (5) Tyco in view of Rupert
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01053
`
`and in further view of the Century Fold-n-Go Care Center Manual (January 1998)
`
`("Century") (Ground 7 of the Petition).
`
`The Board should decline to institute inter partes review proceedings
`
`because each of the above grounds suffers from one or more fatal defects. For
`
`example, four of Petitioner's grounds rely upon the alleged Tyco reference, which
`
`is not a patent or "printed publication" and therefore not a proper basis for
`
`requesting inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). Further, all of Petitioner's
`
`bases rely upon one or more other references, specifically, Dole, Rupert, Graco and
`
`Century – all of which were of record in the original prosecution and are cited
`
`references on the face of the '501 patent. Therefore, claims 1-20 of the '501 patent
`
`were allowed over four of the five references cited in the Petition, and the fifth
`
`reference (Tyco) is not even a patent or printed publication. See, 35 U.S.C. §
`
`325(d) ("In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this
`
`chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and
`
`reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or
`
`arguments previously were presented to the Office."). Additionally, the Dole
`
`patent, directed to the construction of collapsible shelters, and the Rupert patent,
`
`directed to folding portable shelters, are both non-analogous art, and therefore are
`
`not available as prior art for obviousness of the '501 patent. Finally, even ignoring
`
`these shortcomings, the allegedly anticipatory Dole and Rupert references and each
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01053
`
`combination of references upon which Petitioner relies for its obviousness analysis
`
`fail to teach or suggest at least one limitation of each of the claims of the '501
`
`patent. The Board should accordingly deny the Petition in its entirety.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The Petition fails to present any claim constructions for most of the relevant
`
`terms. By failing to present its claim constructions, Petitioner attempts to establish
`
`unpatentability of the '501 patent based on vague and unsupported assertions of
`
`how the prior art allegedly discloses the claimed limitations of the '501 patent.
`
`Notably, Petitioner originally provided no claim constructions at all. (Paper 1,
`
`Original Petition). The Board found the original Petition defective on that basis,
`
`stating that "[a]t least one claim term must be specifically construed," and required
`
`that Petitioner correct the defect. (Paper 3, Notice of Filing Date). In response,
`
`Petitioner filed a Corrected Petition proposing constructions only for various
`
`derivations of the term "couple," relying solely on extrinsic dictionary definitions
`
`for support. (Petition at pp. 13-14 and Exhibits 1013 and 1014).
`
`Petitioner's inadequate claim construction analysis is yet another reason to
`
`deny the Petition. In Zetec, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., IPR2014-00384, 2014
`
`WL 3704254 (P.T.A.B. July 23, 2014) (Exhibit 2005), as here, the Board initially
`
`rejected the petition for failing to include any express claim constructions, Id. at *4
`
`(citing C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)), noting that "[i]n most cases, claim construction is an
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01053
`
`important step in the determination of whether the challenged claims are
`
`unpatentable over the cited prior art." Id. In response, the Zetec petitioner filed an
`
`amended petition proposing constructions for six terms but failed to cite any
`
`portion of the specification or any other evidence. Id. The Board denied institution
`
`of inter partes review "for reasons of administrative efficiency" because, inter alia,
`
`the Petition asserted "a large number of grounds and presents underdeveloped
`
`arguments against each claim" and included proposed claim constructions but "the
`
`bases of the proffered constructions are not stated." Id. at *8-10. In the present
`
`case, Petitioner similarly failed to cite any portions of the specification in support
`
`of its proposed constructions of the term "couple," and offered no constructions at
`
`all for numerous additional relevant terms. This is another reason to deny the
`
`Petition in its entirety or, at a minimum, adopt the well-supported claim
`
`constructions proffered by Patent Owner, as set forth below.
`
`Because the '501 patent has not expired, the Board must construe its claims
`
`under the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci.
`
`Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP § 2111. Specifically,
`
`during examination, "claims ... are to be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation consistent with the specification, and ... claim language should be
`
`read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art." Id. As detailed below, Patent Owner's proposed claim constructions for
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01053
`
`various terms recited in the claims of the '501 patent are consistent with the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation that one of ordinary skill in the art would ascribe
`
`to those terms in view of the patent's specification. Patent Owner's proposed
`
`constructions should accordingly be adopted by the Board in conjunction with
`
`evaluating Petitioner's request for inter partes review.
`
`A. BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF "COUPLE",
`"COUPLED" AND "COUPLABLE"
`
`Pointing exclusively to dictionary definitions, Petitioner submits that the
`
`terms "couple", "coupled" and "couplable", as recited in claims 1-3, 8-11, 13-16
`
`and 201 of the '501 patent, should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`(Petition at 13-14). Petitioner ascribes the following "plain and ordinary meaning"
`
`to these terms:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`"to couple" means "to link together, connect, fasten, or associate
`
`together in a pair or pairs"
`
`"coupled" means "linked together, connected, fastened, or associated
`
`together in a pair or pairs"
`
`"couplable" means "able to [be] linked together, able to be connected,
`
`able to be fastened, or able to be associated together in a pair or pairs"
`
`
`1 Petitioner's identification of pertinent claims appears to be erroneous, as
`
`the term "coupled" is also recited in claim 7 of the '501 patent, but not in claim 8.
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01053
`
`(Petition at 14).
`
`Patent Owner agrees with the portions of Petitioner's proposed constructions
`
`referring to the functions of linking together, connecting or fastening objects to one
`
`another, as such functions are consistent with the '501 patent's usage of the term
`
`"couple." By way of example, the specification of the '501 patent states the
`
`following:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`It also includes a play gym to suspend an object above the mat
`when the mat is positioned in the play yard and/or the bassinet,
`and at least one connector to couple the play gym to the mat
`when the mat is removed from the play yard and/or the
`bassinet.
`For instance, in a known prior art device, 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.
`To removably couple the play gym 10 to at least one of the
`bassinet 12 and the play yard 14, at least one of the mat 16, the
`bassinet 12 and the play yard 14 is provided with connectors
`50. Persons of ordinary skill in the art will readily appreciate
`that the connectors 50 may be implemented in any number of
`ways. In the illustrated example, the connectors 50 are
`implemented by fabric pockets 50 which are sewn or otherwise
`fastened adjacent the corners of the bassinet 12 and/or the play
`yard 14 (see FIG. 6). The ends of the legs 22 opposite the hub
`20 are positioned in respective ones of these pockets 50 to
`6
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01053
`
`•
`
`thereby couple the play gym 10 to the bassinet 12 and/or the
`play yard 14.
`To removably couple the play gym 10 to the mat 16, the mat 16
`is further provided with a plurality of connectors 60. To
`removably join the legs 22 to the connectors 60, each of the
`legs 22 preferably terminates in a foot 68 having a diameter
`approximately equal to the diameter of the leg 22, and a
`reduced diameter ankle 70 located between the foot 68 and the
`leg 22 (see FIG. 5). The feet 68 and ankles 70 may be integrally
`formed into a single piece and fastened to their corresponding
`legs 22 by a fastener such as a rivet as shown in FIGS. 3 and 8,
`or may be integrally formed with their corresponding legs 22.
`(Ex. 1001, '501 patent, Abstract, 1:61-64, 5:10-21, 5:60 – 6:3; emphasis added).2
`
`The remaining portion of Petitioner's proposed construction, however, is
`
`vague and overbroad. Specifically, the phrase "associate together in a pair or
`
`
`2 Patent Owner's citations herein to any of Exhibits 1001 through 1014 are
`
`made in reference to the exhibits submitted by Petitioner in conjunction with the
`
`filing of its Petition. Patent Owner's submission of additional exhibits in this
`
`Preliminary Response will begin with Exhibit 2002. When making pinpoint
`
`citations to documents taking the form of patents, Patent Owner is utilizing a
`
`format of [column]:[lines]. For example, a citation to "column 1, lines 1-10" of a
`
`particular patent will appear as "1:1-10".
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01053
`
`pairs" as set forth in Petitioner's proposed construction goes beyond the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation that should be ascribed to the term "couple" (or to the
`
`variations thereof – "coupled" and "couplable"). Common usage of the word
`
`"associate" does not convey a mechanical relationship in the sense of connecting,
`
`linking or fastening objects to one another – which is how the '501 patent uses the
`
`term "couple." For example, one might "associate" two matching socks emerging
`
`from a dryer full of clothes simply by stacking the socks on top of one another and
`
`placing them in a drawer. Yet no one would consider those socks to be "coupled"
`
`to one another in any mechanical sense of the word, and particularly not in the
`
`context in which the term "couple" is used in the '501 patent.
`
`In view of the foregoing, Patent Owner submits that the terms "couple",
`
`"coupled" and "couplable" as recited in the claims of the '501 patent should be
`
`interpreted as follows:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`"to couple" means "to link, connect or fasten together"
`
`"coupled" means "linked, connected or fastened together"
`
`"couplable" means "able to be linked, connected or fastened together"
`
`Patent Owner's proposed constructions for these terms coincide with the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation that one of ordinary skill in the art would ascribe to the
`
`terms having reviewed the specification of the '501 patent. Patent Owner's
`
`proposed constructions should accordingly be adopted by the Board.
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01053
`
`BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF "PLAY GYM"
`
`B.
`Although not directly addressed in Petitioner's initiating papers, the proper
`
`interpretation of the claim term "play gym" is highly pertinent to the Board's
`
`determination as to whether any aspect of Petitioner's request for inter partes
`
`review should go forward. The term "play gym" is expressly recited in claims 1-5,
`
`9, 11 and 14-15 of the '501 patent. The specification of the '501 patent makes clear
`
`that the claimed "play gym" is an apparatus that is specifically designed: (1) to be
`
`used by small children – namely babies and infants; and (2) to suspend an object –
`
`namely a toy – above a mat or other structure to which the play gym is coupled.
`
`By way of example, the specification of the '501 patent states:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Play gyms and methods of operating the same are disclosed. A
`disclosed example includes a floor mat dimensioned to be
`positioned within a play yard and/or a bassinet. It also includes
`a play gym to suspend an object above the mat when the mat is
`positioned in the play yard and/or the bassinet, and at least one
`connector to couple the play gym to the mat when the mat is
`removed from the play yard and/or the bassinet.
`This disclosure relates generally to child care products, and,
`more particularly, to play gyms and methods of operating the
`same.
`Mats for use on a floor with an over-arching play gym have also
`become popular in recent years. For instance, in a known prior
`art device, a play gym having two flexible arches for
`suspending objects such as toys or the like is coupled to the
`9
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01053
`
`•
`
`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. A small child placed on the mat may be entertained
`by the suspended objects. Because the play gym's arches are
`flexible, the suspended objects tend to bounce and move in
`response to vibrations such as those that might be caused by
`the child batting his/her hands and/or feet at the objects.
`FIG. 1 is a perspective view of an example play gym 10
`mounted to an example bassinet 12 which is, in turn, mounted
`to an example portable play yard 14. The illustrated play gym
`10 is structured to suspend an object such as a toy above the
`bassinet 12 and/or the play yard 14 as explained below.
`Additionally, the play gym 10 is structured to suspend the
`same or a different object above a mat 16 separate from the
`bassinet 12 and the play yard 14 as shown in FIG. 2.
`(Ex. 1001, '501 patent, Abstract, 1:20-22, 1:60 – 2:4, 2:36-43; emphasis added).
`
`An embodiment of the claimed "play gym" is illustrated in Figure 2 of the '501
`
`patent, shown below:
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01053
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, '501 patent, Figure 2). Furthermore, claims 1 and 9 of the '501 patent
`
`expressly recite "a play gym to suspend an object above the floor mat" – language
`
`that is entirely consistent with the aforementioned written description and figures
`
`from the specification of the '501 patent. (Ex. 1001, '501 patent, claims 1 and 9).
`
`In view of the foregoing intrinsic evidence, Patent Owner submits that the term
`
`"play gym" as recited in the claims of the '501 patent should be interpreted as
`
`follows:
`
`•
`
`"play gym" means "an apparatus structured so as to suspend at least
`
`one object such as a toy above a small child positioned below the
`
`apparatus"
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01053
`
`This is the broadest reasonable interpretation that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would ascribe to the term "play gym" having reviewed the specification of the '501
`
`patent.
`
`
`
`As discussed in greater detail in Sections III-A-2, III-B-2 and III-C-3 below,
`
`Petitioner impliedly seeks to ascribe an unreasonably broad interpretation to the
`
`term "play gym" in conjunction with Petitioner's application of the Dole and
`
`Rupert prior art references. Petitioner acknowledges that Dole and Rupert are
`
`directed to collapsible tent-like shelters. (Petition at 14 and 17). To provide
`
`support for its anticipation arguments directed to Dole and Rupert (Grounds 1 and
`
`2 of the Petition), Petitioner must therefore stretch the meaning of the term "play
`
`gym" so as to encompass such tent-like shelters. In attempting to accomplish this
`
`goal, Petitioner simply equates the term "play gym" with any type of "device"
`
`having a "hub and leg frame work." (Petition at 20 and 24). Petitioner's efforts to
`
`broaden the meaning of the term "play gym" go far beyond any reasonable
`
`interpretation of that term in the context of the '501 patent, and should be rejected
`
`by the Board, as has been the case in the past.
`
`For example, in the context of an inter partes reexamination proceeding
`
`(Reexamination Control No. 95/000,514) initiated by Petitioner involving Patent
`
`Owner's U.S. Patent No. 7,376,993, from which the '501 patent claims priority, the
`
`USPTO made clear that arguments of the type presently being advanced by
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01053
`
`Petitioner with respect to the proper meaning of the claim term "play gym" are
`
`without merit. In that proceeding, the USPTO stated the following with respect to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,109,280 to Custer ("Custer") – a prior art reference upon which
`
`Petitioner based its request for reexamination:
`
`Custer is the only reference that shows a frame being mountable to a
`play yard or a play mat. … Custer is not a play gym, but rather a
`cabana (a shade with fabric supported by the frame) and is not
`disclosed to be collapsible in the manner claimed.
`
`
`(Ex. 2002, Feb. 12, 2010 Office Action in Reexamination Control No. 95/000,514
`
`at p. 16; emphasis added). Figure 1 of Custer, which depicts the cabana referenced
`
`in the foregoing statement, is shown below:
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01053
`
`
`
`(Ex. 2003, Custer at Fig. 1). In making the foregoing statement, the USPTO
`
`acknowledged that a structure comprised of fabric supported by a frame does not
`
`constitute the claimed "play gym." The same result should follow here with
`
`respect to Petitioner's efforts to include tent-like shelters (as disclosed by Dole and
`
`Rupert) within the scope of the term "play gym." If anything, Dole and Rupert are
`
`even further removed from the proper scope of the term "play gym" than was the
`
`case for Custer, as Custer (unlike Dole and Rupert) disclosed a structure that was
`
`purposed for use by a small child.
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01053
`
`In contrast to Petitioner's unsupported interpretation, Patent Owner's
`
`proposed construction is consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`the term "play gym" as supported by the specification of the '501 patent. Patent
`
`Owner's proposed construction should accordingly be adopted by the Board.
`
`C. BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF "CONNECTOR OF
`THE FLOOR MAT IS POSITIONED ON AN UNDERSIDE OF THE FLOOR
`MAT", "SECOND PLURALITY OF CONNECTORS PROVIDED ON THE
`SECOND SURFACE OF THE FLOOR MAT" AND "FLOOR MAT
`DEFINING … A BOTTOM SURFACE … HAVING A FIRST CONNECTOR
`THAT INCLUDES AN OPENING"
`
`Claim 6 of the '501 patent requires that the "connector of the floor mat is
`
`positioned on an underside of the floor mat." (Ex. 1001, '501 patent, claim 6).
`
`Claim 9 of the '501 patent requires a "second plurality of connectors provided on
`
`the second surface of the floor mat." (Id., claim 9). Claim 14 of the '501 patent
`
`requires a "floor mat defining an upper surface and a bottom surface, the bottom
`
`surface having a first connector that includes an opening." (Id., claim 14).
`
`Although not directly addressed in Petitioner's initiating papers, the proper
`
`interpretation of these claim limitations is highly pertinent to the Board's
`
`determination as to whether certain aspects of Petitioner's request for inter partes
`
`review should go forward, namely Grounds 1 and 2 of the Petition in their entirety,
`
`and Ground 3 of the Petition with respect to claims 6, 7, 9-13, 15, 16 and 18 of the
`
`'501 patent.
`
`15
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01053
`
`The specification of the '501 patent makes clear that each of the
`
`aforementioned claim limitations, at a minimum, requires that one or more
`
`structures identified as a "connector" (or "connectors") must be attached to the
`
`underside (which the claims and the specification interchangeably refer to as the
`
`"second surface" and the "bottom surface") of a floor mat. By way of example, the
`
`specification of the '501 patent provides the following:
`
`As shown in FIGS. 2 and 5, in the illustrated example each of the
`connectors 60 is implemented by a plate 62 that defines an aperture
`64 for receiving a respective one of feet 68 of the legs 22. Preferably,
`each of the apertures 64 comprises an enlarged end or opening
`dimensioned to receive the foot 68 of a respective one of the legs 22.
`* * *
`In the illustrated example, the plate 62 is pivotably coupled to the
`underside of the mat 16 via a rivet 62 (see FIG. 5). Thus, when the
`plate 62 is moved to its first position (i.e., within the perimeter of the
`mat 16), the connector 60 is located beneath the mat 16, but when
`the plate 62 is moved to its second position, at least a portion of the
`connector 60 is not disposed beneath the mat 16.
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, '501 patent, 6:4-29; emphasis added). An embodiment of the claimed
`
`"connector of the floor mat positioned on an underside of the floor mat"
`
`arrangement is illustrated in Figure 5 of the '501 patent, shown below, wherein
`
`connector 60 is attached via rivet 62 to the underside (i.e., the "second surface" or
`
`"bottom surface") of floor mat 16:
`
`16
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01053
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, '501 patent, Figure 5).
`
`In view of the foregoing intrinsic evidence, and embracing the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of the claim language, Patent Owner submits that the following
`
`proposed constructions coincide with the broadest reasonable interpretation to one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art having reviewed the specification of the '501 patent:
`
`•
`
`"connector of the floor mat is positioned on an underside of the floor
`
`mat" (claim 6) means the "connector of the floor mat is attached to the
`
`underside of the floor mat"
`
`•
`
`"second plurality of connectors provided on the second surface of the
`
`floor mat" (claim 9) means the "second plurality of connectors are
`
`attached to the second surface of the floor mat"
`
`17
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01053
`
`•
`
`"floor mat defining … a bottom surface, the bottom surface having a
`
`first connector that includes an opening" (claim 14) means "the first
`
`connector, which includes an opening, is attached to the bottom
`
`surface of the floor mat"
`
`As discussed in greater detail in Sections III-A-2, III-B-2 and III-C-3 below,
`
`Petitioner impliedly seeks to ascribe an unreasonably broad interpretation to the
`
`aforementioned claim limitations in conjunction with Petitioner's application of the
`
`Dole and Rupert prior art references as articulated in Grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the
`
`Petition. For example, in relation to claim 14 of the '501 patent, Petitioner seeks to
`
`stretch the meaning of the term "floor mat defining … a bottom surface, the bottom
`
`surface having a first connector that includes an opening" so as to encompass a
`
`situation whereby the limitation is satisfied simply by any indication of a
`
`connection between Dole's "connector" (item 12(a) in Dole) and Dole's floor mat
`
`(item 11 in Dole). (Petition at 22, 32 and 36). Petitioner makes this assertion
`
`absent any disclosure in Dole that its "connectors" are actually attached to the
`
`bottom surface (or, as applied to Claims 6 and 9, respectively, the "underside" and
`
`the "second surface") of the Dole floor mat. Petitioner's overbroad interpretation
`
`effectively reads the referenced claim limitation completely out of the claim, and is
`
`accordingly improper.
`
`18
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01053
`
`As another example of Petitioner's strained
`
`interpretation of
`
`the
`
`aforementioned claim limitations, Petitioner seeks to stretch the meaning of the
`
`term "floor mat defining … a bottom surface, the bottom surface having a first
`
`connector that includes an opening" (claim 14) to encompass an arrangement
`
`whereby the limitation is satisfied by Rupert's grommets (item 70 in Rupert) that
`
`pass through Rupert's "floor mat" (item 72 in Rupert). (Petition at 26). The
`
`referenced claim language plainly does not encompass such an arrangement.
`
`While Rupert's arrangement most certainly discloses a floor mat having a plurality
`
`of openings, this structure fails to constitute a connector that includes an opening,
`
`wherein the connector is attached to the bottom surface of a floor mat, as is
`
`required by the plain language of claim 14.
`
`In contrast to Petitioner's unsupported implied interpretations of the
`
`aforementioned claim limitations, Patent Owner's proposed constructions are
`
`consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof, as supported by the
`
`specification of the '501 patent. Patent Owner's proposed constructions for these
`
`claim terms should accordingly be adopted by the Board.
`
`D. BROADEST REASONABLE
`INTERPRETATION OF "PIVOTALLY COUPLED"
`
`Although not directly addressed in Petitioner's initiating papers, the proper
`
`interpretation of the claim term "pivotally coupled" is highly pertinent to the
`
`Board's determination as to whether any aspect of Petitioner's request for inter
`
`19
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01053
`
`partes review should go forward with respect to any one of claims 7, 13 and 20 of
`
`the '501 patent. Each such claim makes reference to a connector being "pivotally
`
`coupled" to an underside (also referred to as a "second surface" or "bottom
`
`surface") of a floor mat. (See Ex. 1001, '501 patent, claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14 and
`
`20). As detailed in Section II-A above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`the term "coupled" is "linked, connected or fastened together." With this
`
`interpretation in mind, Patent Owner submits that the term "pivotally coupled," as
`
`recited in claims 7, 13 and 20 of the '501 patent, should be interpreted as follows:
`
`•
`
`"pivotally coupled" means "linked, connected or fastened together by
`
`or as if on a pivot"
`
`The specification of the '501 patent provides support for Patent Owner's
`
`proposed construction. By way of example, the specification states:
`
`In the illustrated example, each of the connectors 60 is pivotably
`coupled to the mat 16 for movement between a first position wherein
`the plate 62 is entirely within the pe