Petitioner Norman International, Inc.’s
`Demonstratives
`
`Norman International, Inc.
`v.
`Hunter Douglas Inc.
`
`Case IPR2014-01175
`Patent No. 6,968,884 B2
`
`BEFORE LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JAMES P. CALVE AND
`HYUN J. JUNG, ADMINISTRATIVEPATENTJUDGES
`
`Oral Argument
`October 20, 2015
`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman, Ex. 1016
`Norman Int. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc.
`IPR2014-01175
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`2
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,968,884
`
`Institution Decision, Paper 7, p. 3
`
`Ex. 1001, p. 1
`
`’884 PATENT
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`3
`
`Priority Date
`
`Ex. 1001, p. 1
`
`’884 PATENT
`
`

`
`Claim 7 and
`“One-Way Friction Brake”
`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`5
`
`Claim 7
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 69, ll. 31 – 56
`
`CLAIM 7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`6
`
`Challenged Claim 7
`
`Disclosure
`
`Preamble: A system for
`covering an architectural
`opening, comprising:
`
`[7A]: a covering movable
`between an extended
`position for covering the
`opening and a retracted
`position for uncovering the
`opening;
`[7B]: a spring motor;
`
`[7C]: a rotating output
`operatively connected to the
`spring motor;
`
`[7D]: a lift cord operatively
`connected to the rotating
`output and to the covering;
`
`Cohn: “Cordless Venetian Blind”; “My
`invention relates generally to Venetian
`blinds, and more particularly to an
`improved type of Venetian blind hardware
`for use with conventional slats to form a
`blind….”
`Cohn: “a plurality of slats 17”; “a spring
`motor 20 is provided for raising the blind”
`
`Cohn: “a spring motor 20 is provided for
`raising the blind and is disposed in
`operative relation with shaft 7”
`
`Cohn: “shaft 7 is operatively connected to a
`spring motor 20”;
`Petition (Cohn): “a horizontal, rotatable
`shaft that operatively couples to other
`independent mechanical components to
`raise and lower the covering via a lifting
`mechanism including one or more spring
`motors”
`Petition (Cohn): “lifting tape 10 operatively
`connected to the shaft 7 (via the drums/reels
`8) and to the slats 17 (via fabric rungs 16 of
`ladder tape 19)”
`
`Petitioner
`Evidence/
`Explanations
`Ex. 1006 at 1,
`3;
`see Pet. at 57,
`50, 46-48;
`Paper 10 at 6
`
`Ex. 1006 at 3,
`RC line 52, 4
`LC lines15-18
`Fig. 1
`see Pet. at 57,
`50, 47-48
`Ex. 1006 at 2,
`LC lines 8-11;
`3, LC lines 16-
`18; Figs. 1, 5, 6
`see Pet. at 57,
`47-48
`Ex. 1006 at 2,
`LC lines 8-11;
`Figs. 1, 5, 6;
`Pet. at 58, 47-
`48;
`see Paper 10 at
`6-7
`
`Pet. at 58, 52;
`see Ex. 1006 at
`1, RC lines 33-
`43; 2, LC lines
`3-7; Figs. 1, 4
`
`Paper 1, pp. 29-31, 50-59; Exs. 1003, 1006
`
`(Continued on next slide)
`PETITION
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`7
`
`Challenged Claim 7
`
`Disclosure
`
`[7E]: said rotating output
`being rotatable in clockwise
`and counterclockwise
`directions to move the
`covering between its
`extended and retracted
`positions; and
`
`Cohn: “In order to lower the blind, a person
`merely grasps the bottom rail 18 and pulls it
`downwardly. This downward movement of
`the bottom rail will effect an unreeling of
`the lift tapes 10 from the drums 8 and cause
`rotation of said drums and the shaft 7, upon
`which they are mounted.”
`
`Petitioner
`Evidence/
`Explanations
`Ex. 1006 at 3,
`LC lines 43-
`48; 3, RC lines
`25-28;
`See Pet. at 58,
`53
`
`Cohn: “energy stored in the springs 54 and
`59 causes rotation of the shaft 7 with the
`consequent raising of the blind by means of
`the lift tapes 10.”
`
`Paper 1, pp. 29-31, 50-59; Exs. 1003, 1006
`
`(Continued on next slide)
`PETITION
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`8
`
`Challenged Claim 7
`
`Disclosure
`
`Petitioner
`Evidence/
`Explanations
`Pet. at 58-59,
`29-30
`see Ex. 1006 at
`3, RC lines 1-
`3;
`Ex. 1003 at
`3:11-35; 4:31-
`33; 1:28-34;
`Fig. 6;
`Ex. 1009 ¶110
`Paper 10 at 6-
`14;
`Ex. 1013 ¶26
`
`Pet. at 59, 30-
`31;
`see Ex. 1003 at
`1:28-34;
`Paper 10 at 9-
`10, 15-18
`
`[7F]: a one-way friction
`brake operatively
`connected to said
`rotating output, said
`one-way friction brake
`providing braking force
`opposing the rotation of
`the rotating output in
`one of the directions
`while permitting the
`rotating output to rotate
`freely in the other of
`said directions;
`
`Cohn: “The blind may be stopped and
`maintained at any desired height relative to the
`window casing by suitable means[.]”
`
`Petition (Strahm): “Strahm discloses a suitable
`means to provide braking force that opposes the
`rotation of the rotating output in one direction
`while permitting free rotation in the other
`direction.”
`
`Petition (Strahm): “Strahm discloses a one-way
`friction brake mechanism, which has conical
`washers 33 and 36 that contact wall 34 when
`sleeve 32 is rotated, thus forming a friction
`brake. The ‘hand’ (direction of winding) of
`spring 21 which contacts sleeve 19 allows
`rotation in one direction but not the other. This
`combination creates a one-way friction brake.
`Strahm discloses that the one-way friction brake
`mechanism is operatively connected to rotating
`shaft 4 (i.e., ‘rotating output’). The one-way
`friction brake mechanism of Strahm provides a
`braking force that opposes the rotation of the
`rotating shaft 4 in one direction and permits the
`rotating shaft 4 to rotate freely in the other
`direction.”
`Petition (Strahm): “the one-way friction brake
`mechanism of Strahm applies a braking force
`that opposes the rotation of the rotating shaft 4
`when the rotating shaft 4 rotates in a direction to
`lower parallel slats 1 of the blind, and permits
`the rotating shaft 4 to rotate freely in the other
`direction to raise the blind….”
`
`[7G]: wherein said one-
`way brake applies a
`braking force opposing
`rotation of the rotating
`output for movement of
`the covering to the
`extended position while
`permitting free rotation
`for movement of the
`covering to the
`retracted position.
`Paper 1, pp. 29-31, 50-59; Exs. 1003, 1006
`
`PETITION
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`9
`
`“One-Way Friction Brake”
`
`Paper 1, pp. 11-12
`
`PETITION
`
`Ex. 1009, ¶69; see ¶¶66-71
`
`CARLSON DECLARATION
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`10
`
`“One-Way Friction Brake”
`
`Ex. 1009, ¶69; see ¶¶66-71
`
`CARLSON DECLARATION
`
`EX. 1001, Figs. 183A-184
`
`’884 PATENT (EX. 1001)
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`11
`
`“One-Way Friction Brake”
`
`Ex. 1009, ¶¶69, 71; see ¶¶33, 47, 66-71;
`Petition, Paper 1, pp. 7-8, 12; Paper 10, p. 13
`
`CARLSON DECLARATION
`
`

`
`Claim 7: Obviousness over
`Cohn in view of Strahm
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`13
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,390,826 (Cohn)
`
`Ex. 1006, p. 1 ll. 23-27; p. 3 ll. 1-3;
`p. 4 ll. 19-29
`
`EX. 1006: COHN REFERENCE
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`14
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,390,826 (Cohn)
`
`Ex. 1006, Fig 1, p. 2, LC, ll. 8-11, p. 3 LC,
`ll. 43-48, RC ll. 1-4, RC ll. 24-28
`
`EX. 1006: COHN REFERENCE
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`15
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,327,765 (Strahm)
`
`Ex. 1003, p.1, 3, col. 1, ll. 30-34
`
`EX. 1003: STRAHM REFERENCE
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`16
`
`Strahm: Friction Brake + One-Direction =
`One-Way Friction Brake
`
`Ex. 1003, Fig. 6, col. 2 ll. 45-53; col.
`3: 15-35, col. 4:32-33; see Paper 1,
`pp. 20-21, 49, 56-57; Ex. 1009,
`¶110; Ex. 1013, ¶26
`
`EX. 1003: STRAHM REFERENCE
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`17
`
`Strahm: Friction Brake + One-Direction =
`One-Way Friction Brake
`
`Paper 1, pp. 20-21, 49, 56-57; see Ex. 1009,
`¶110
`
`PETITION
`
`Paper 10, pp. 9-15
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`18
`
`Motivation to Combine:
`Cohn and Strahm Are In Same Technical Field
`
`Cohn, Fig. 1
`
`Paper 1, pp. 46-48, see pp. 49, 56-57; Ex.
`1009, ¶¶140, 142, 164; Ex. 1010, ¶¶44, 47;
`Ex. 1013, ¶¶20-21
`
`PETITION
`
`Strahm, Fig. 6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`19
`
`Motivation to Combine:
`Strahm Teaches The “Suitable Means” Of Cohn
`
`Paper 1, pp. 20-21, 29-30, 58-59; see Ex.
`1009, ¶¶83, 110, 171; Ex. 1010, ¶57
`
`PETITION
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`20
`
`Motivation to Combine:
`Strahm Teaches The “Suitable Means” Of Cohn
`
`Ex. 1010, ¶57
`
`FOLEY DECLARATION
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`21
`
`Motivation to Combine:
`Strahm Teaches The “Suitable Means” Of Cohn
`
`Paper 10, pp. 6-7
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`22
`
`Motivation to Combine:
`Strahm Teaches The “Suitable Means” Of Cohn
`
`Paper 10, pp. 6-10; see Ex. 1013,
`¶¶22-25
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`23
`
`Motivation to Combine:
`Strahm Teaches The “Suitable Means” Of Cohn
`
`Paper 10, pp. 10-11; see Ex. 1013, ¶26
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`24
`
`Motivation to Combine:
`Strahm Teaches The “Suitable Means” Of Cohn
`
`Paper 10, pp. 11-12, 15; see Ex.
`1013, ¶¶27-41
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Response Repeats
`The Same Arguments The Board
`Already Rejected
`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`26
`
`Patent Owner Repeats Arguments
`The Board Already Rejected
`
`Paper 7, pp. 19-20
`
`INSTITUTION DECISION
`
`Paper 10, pp. 5; see Institution Decision,
`Paper 7, pp. 20
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`27
`
`Patent Owner Repeats Arguments
`The Board Already Rejected
`
`Paper 7, pp. 19-20
`
`INSTITUTION DECISION
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`28
`
`Patent Owner’s Complexity Argument Lacks Legal
`Basis And Is Incorrect
`
`Paper 10, p. 8; see Institution Decision,
`Paper 7, p. 20
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`Paper 7, p. 20
`
`INSTITUTION DECISION
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`29
`
`Strahm’s One-Way Friction Brake Is Consistent With
`Cohn’s Assembly
`
`Paper 10, pp. 15-17; see Ex. 1013 ¶¶
`29-32, 36-37; Petition, pp. 53-54.
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`30
`
`Patent Owner’s Teaching Away Argument
`Impermissibly Adds Limitations To Claim 7
`
`Paper 10, pp. 15-17; see Ex. 1013,
`¶¶29-32, 36-37
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`

`
`Secondary Considerations
`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`32
`
`Patent Owner’s “Intervening Time” Argument Is
`Unsupported By Evidence
`
`Paper 9, p. 24
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Paper 10, pp. 19-20
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Norman v. Hunter Douglas
`
`Norman Demonstrative
`
`33
`
`No Nexus And No Long Felt But Unsolved Need
`
`Paper 10, pp. 19-21
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY