Trials@uspto.gov Paper 14
`571-272-7822 Entered: December 19, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ARTSANA USA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMES T. MOORE, HYUN J. JUNG, and
`BARRY L. GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Background
`
`
`
`Artsana USA, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Corrected Petition (Paper 5,
`
`“Pet.”) seeking to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,388,501 B2 (“the ’501 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–
`
`
`
`ARTSANA EXHIBIT 1017-1
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501 B2
`
`319. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`
`Response (Paper 11, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be
`
`instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`
`petition.”
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends the challenged claims are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the following specific grounds (Pet.
`
`20–59):
`
`References
`
`Dole1
`
`Rupert2
`
`Dole and Graco3
`
`Tyco4 and Graco
`
`Basis Claims challenged
`
`§ 102
`
`14, 19, and 20
`
`§ 102
`
`14 and 19
`
`§ 103
`
`1–13, 15, 16, and 18
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 6, 7, 9, 12, and 13
`
`Tyco, Graco, and Dole
`
`§ 103
`
`2–5, 8, and 11
`
`Tyco and Rupert
`
`§ 103
`
`14, 19, and 20
`
`Tyco, Rupert, and Century5
`
`§ 103
`
`15–18
`
`Our factual findings and conclusions at this stage of the proceeding
`
`
`
`are based on the evidentiary record developed thus far (prior to Patent
`
`Owner’s Response). This is not a final decision as to patentability of claims
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 3,223,098, Dec. 14, 1965 (Ex. 1003).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 2,948,287, Aug. 9, 1960 (Ex. 1006).
`3 Graco Pack ’N Play Product Brochure, copyright 2001 (“Graco”) (Ex.
`1004).
`4 Tyco’s Sesame Street Cozy Quilt Gym (“Tyco”) (Ex. 1009).
`5 Century Fold -n- Go Care Center Manual (“Century”) (Ex. 1005).
`2
`
`
`
`ARTSANA EXHIBIT 1017-2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501 B2
`
`for which inter partes review is instituted. Our final decision will be based
`
`on the record as fully developed during trial.
`
`
`
`For reasons discussed below, we institute inter partes review of the
`
`’501 patent as to claims 1–5 and 8 based on the authorized grounds, as
`
`discussed herein, and we do not institute inter partes review of claims 6–7
`
`and 9–20.
`
`
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`
`
`
`Petitioner informs us that the ’501 patent is at issue in Kolcraft
`
`Enterprises, Inc. v. Artsana USA, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-04863 (N.D. Ill.). Pet. 1.
`
`
`
`C. The ’501 Patent
`
`
`
`The ’501 patent relates to a play gym which suspends an object over a
`
`mat within a play yard. Ex. 1001, Abstract. Figure 2 is illustrative and is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`Figure 2 is a perspective view of a play gym and mat
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`ARTSANA EXHIBIT 1017-3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501 B2
`
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`
`
`
`As noted above, Petitioner challenges claims 1–20 of the ’501 patent,
`
`of which claims 1, 9, and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
`
`challenged claims and is reproduced below:
`
`1. An apparatus comprising:
`
`at least one of a play yard or a bassinet;
`
`a floor mat dimensioned to substantially cover a floor of
`the play yard or the bassinet, the floor mat having a connector
`positioned in proximity to a perimeter edge of the floor mat,
`and the floor mat to couple to at least one of the play yard or the
`bassinet when the floor mat is located within the play yard or
`the bassinet; and
`
`a play gym to suspend an object above the floor mat, the
`play gym having a fastener to engage the connector of the floor
`mat to couple the play gym to the floor mat, the floor mat to
`couple the play gym to the play yard or the bassinet when the
`play gym is positioned in one of the play yard or the bassinet.
`
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`Specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
`
`also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug.
`
`14, 2012). Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as
`
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the
`
`entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the
`
`Specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`4
`
`
`
`ARTSANA EXHIBIT 1017-4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner does not assert a particular meaning for the term “play
`
`yard” or the term “play gym,” although the terms occur singularly, and
`
`occasionally together, in all of the challenged claims. There seems to be
`
`little doubt that play yards were well known in the art. Pet. 10 (citing Ex.
`
`1001, 2:60–62). There also seems to be little doubt that play gyms were
`
`known in the art. Ex. 1001, 1:60–66.
`
`
`
`The proper construction for these terms is necessary in order to
`
`properly address the Patent Owner’s contention concerning the sufficiency
`
`of the description in the cited prior art. See Prelim. Resp. 25.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner asserts that the term “play gym” should be construed as
`
`“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.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 9.
`
`
`
`There are no size limitations in the claims, and no requirement in the
`
`claims that the apparatus only be used in combination with babies and
`
`infants (although an alternative embodiment includes a bassinet). Indeed,
`
`Patent Owner’s statement that it is “to be used” makes the point that the
`
`interpretation the Patent Owner desires is a statement of intended use, rather
`
`than a definition of a structure. It is not unreasonable to imagine the claim
`
`covering, for example, a device suspended over an adult in rehabilitation in a
`
`confined area.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s expert witness, Mr. Drobinski, testifies that the ’501
`
`patent describes a known prior art 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
`
`
`
`5
`
`ARTSANA EXHIBIT 1017-5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501 B2
`
`one another roughly above the middle of the mat.” Ex. 1010, 7 ¶ 26 (citing
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:61–66.)
`
`
`
`Accordingly, we conclude that based upon the evidence presently of
`
`record, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “play gym” is a structure or
`
`apparatus which is capable of suspending an object over a defined area.
`
`
`
`Likewise, a “play yard” is an area delineated by a frame, an enclosure
`
`supported by the frame, and a floor. Ex. 1001, 1:26–29.
`
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that the terms “couple,” “coupled,” and “couplable”
`
`are to be given their plain and ordinary meanings. Pet. 13–14. The
`
`definition given is to (or be able to) link together, connect, fasten, or
`
`associate together in a pair or pairs. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1013,6 318and Ex.
`
`1014,7 334). Patent Owner asserts that “associate together in a pair or pairs”
`
`is vague and overbroad. Prelim. Resp. 7–8. We agree with Patent Owner on
`
`this point, and adopt the Patent Owner’s interpretation “to [(or able to)] link,
`
`connect, or fasten together.” Id. at 8.
`
`
`
`Petitioner does not propose a construction for the claim term
`
`“connector.” Patent Owner asserts that a connector must be a structure
`
`attached to the underside of a floor mat. Prelim. Resp. 16. We agree with
`
`the Patent Owner that the connector must comprise some structure and be
`
`associated as claimed with the floor mat. Otherwise, the language “the
`
`bottom surface having a first connector” would be meaningless.
`
`
`
`B. The Cited Art
`
`1. U.S. Patent No. 3,223,098 to Dole (“Dole”) (Ex. 1003)
`
`
`6 THE AMERICAN HERITAGE COLLEGE DICTIONARY 318 (1993).
`7 WEBSTER’S ENCYCLOPEDIC UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH
`LANGUAGE 334 (1994).
`
`
`
`6
`
`ARTSANA EXHIBIT 1017-6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501 B2
`
`
`
`Dole describes a “Collapsible Shelter Construction” and issued on
`
`December 14, 1965. According to the Dole Specification, it provides a
`
`shelter construction which is quickly set up and collapsed. Ex. 1003, 1:35–
`
`36. The shelter has a sectioned exterior framework, with individual sections
`
`which remain interconnected in any of the set-up, collapsed, or folded
`
`conditions. The shelter is said to be foldable into a very small package to
`
`facilitate the transportation thereof. Id. at 1:22–47. Dole Figure 1 is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`Dole Figure 1 is a perspective view of a shelter. Id. at 2:5–7.
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 2,948,287 to Rupert (“Rupert”) (Ex. 1006)
`
`Rupert describes a folding portable shelter, and issued August 9,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1960. Rupert describes folding portable shelters that are quickly erected.
`
`The folding portable tent includes a tent-supporting structure having ribs of
`
`flexible material, the upper ends of which are pivoted to a quick-action
`
`locking device. A person may bow the ribs into approximately spherical
`
`form while the rib ends are pressed close to one another and firmly against
`
`the ground. A hemispherically-shaped cover is distended by a snap action
`
`
`
`7
`
`ARTSANA EXHIBIT 1017-7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501 B2
`
`into this shape when the operator pulls upward on the locking device to
`
`release the lower ends of the flexible ribs from restraining engagement with
`
`the ground, and thereby free them to spring outward to distend the cover.
`
`Ex. 1006, 1:20–35. Rupert Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`Rupert Figure 1 is a side view of a shelter with collapsible ribs. Id. at
`
`
`
`1:61–68.
`
`
`
`3. The Graco Pack ’N Play Model No. 386-11-01 Owner’s Manual
`(© 2001) (“Graco”) (Ex. 1004)
`
`This is an owner’s manual detailing the operation of a portable folding
`
`
`
`crib, with a copyright date of 2001, which was distributed with the Pack ’N
`
`Play. Patent Owner does not challenge the prior art status of this document
`
`at this time.
`
`
`
`Graco illustrates, among other things, a play gym connected to the
`
`crib in Figure 37.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`ARTSANA EXHIBIT 1017-8
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501 B2
`
`
`Graco Figure 37 is a perspective view of a crib and play gym.
`
`Graco Figures 7 and 8 describe a mattress pad with Velcro
`
`
`
`
`
`attachment, as illustrated below.
`
` Graco Figures 7 and 8 are perspective views of a crib and mattress pad.
`
`
`
`4. The Century Fold-n-Go Care Center Manual (January 1998)
`(“Century”) (Ex. 1005)
`
`Century is a user manual for the Century Fold-n-Go Care Center,
`
`
`
`distributed with the product, bearing the date “1/98.” Ex. 1005, 1. Patent
`
`Owner does not challenge the prior art status of this document at this time.
`
`
`
`9
`
`ARTSANA EXHIBIT 1017-9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501 B2
`
`
`
`Among other description, Century illustrates setting up a crib with a
`
`floor mat and securing the floor mat to the crib. Id. at 4–5. Figures 7 and 8
`
`are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figures 7 and 8 are perspective views of installation of a play yard floor.
`
`5. Certified copy of Tyco’s Sesame Street Cozy Quilt Gym (“Tyco”)
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1009)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has asserted that this art does not qualify as a patent or
`
`printed publication. As we agree (discussed further below) that the
`
`Petitioner has not shown that this set of documents has been adequately
`
`
`
`10
`
`ARTSANA EXHIBIT 1017-10
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501 B2
`
`published to qualify as a printed publication, we need not describe this art
`
`here.
`
`
`
`C. Asserted Anticipation of Claims 14, 19, and 20 by Dole
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that Dole anticipates each of claims 14, 19, and 20.
`
`Pet. 20–24. Claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 14, which is somewhat
`
`different than claim 1. As a consequence, we reproduce these three claims
`
`below as follows.
`
`14. An apparatus comprising:
`
` a
`
` play gym having a leg coupled to a hub, the hub having a cavity and
`the leg having a first end and a second end;
`
` a
`
` first fastener coupled to the first end of the leg to attach the leg to
`the hub and a second fastener extending from the second end of the
`leg, the first fastener to enable the first end of the leg to be
`positionable relative to the 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.
`
`19. The apparatus of claim 14, the first connector of the floor mat is
`positioned adjacent a perimeter edge of the floor mat.
`
`20. The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the first connector is pivotally
`coupled to the floor mat.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:52–64, 10:1–6 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`We first focus in on a contested element of claim 14, which we have
`
`highlighted by italicizing above.
`
`
`
`11
`
`ARTSANA EXHIBIT 1017-11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501 B2
`
`
`
`Claim 14 recites “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.” Ex.
`
`1001, 8:60–64.
`
`
`
`According to Petitioner, Dole describes a device including all the
`
`claim elements, including the first connector. Pet. 21–23.
`
`
`
`With more specificity, Petitioner asserts that the floor mat and
`
`connector are described in Dole as “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).” Pet. 22.
`
`
`
`We are directed by Petitioner to Dole at Figures 1, 2, and column 5,
`
`lines 27–44.
`
`Dole Figures 1 and 2 are reproduced below.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARTSANA EXHIBIT 1017-12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 is a perspective view of a frame hub and legs. Ex. 1003, 2:5–7.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is an enlarged fragmentary perspective view of a frame leg. Id. at
`
`2:8–9.
`
`We focus on one element of claim 14.
`
`Patent Owner points out that Dole does not disclose that tab 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`connector is attached to bottom surface 11. Prelim. Resp. 28. Dole is said to
`
`describe only that the tabs extend from the corners of a floor component. Id.
`
`(citing Ex. 1003, 1:62–66, 2:44–47, 5:32–37).
`
`
`
`To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
`
`limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently. In re
`
`Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`
`
`13
`
`ARTSANA EXHIBIT 1017-13
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501 B2
`
`
`
`Although an initial glance at Figure 2 of Dole might lead one to think
`
`that the tab is under the floor of the tent, it is only definitive that the tab is
`
`under wall 21 of the tent. Reference numeral 11 indicates that the floor is
`
`under the wall. This figure gives us no evidence as to the relationship of the
`
`tab to the floor. It might be affixed to the top, the bottom, or simply sewn to
`
`the edges of the floor. Petitioner’s Declaration does not provide further
`
`evidence regarding the relationship of tab 12a and floor 11. Ex. 1010, 16–
`
`19. Furthermore, in connection with claim 19, Petitioner’s witness only
`
`points out that tab 12 is positioned “adjacent” to a perimeter edge of mat
`
`11(id. at 20 ¶ 52), which gives us no convincing indication as to its
`
`anchoring position vertically. We have no way of knowing with a
`
`reasonable degree of certainty.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not established a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on this ground, and
`
`decline to initiate a review as regards claims 14, 19, and 20, on this ground.
`
`D. Asserted Anticipation of Claims 14 and 19 by Rupert
`
`
`
` Rupert is similar to Dole in its disclosure. We again focus our
`
`attention on the contested element of 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.” Ex. 1001, 8:60–64.
`
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that Rupert describes “floor (72) having an upper
`
`surface and a bottom surface, the bottom surface having connectors that
`
`include openings (i.e., grommets (70)) for receiving the fasteners of the legs
`
`when the frame (12) is coupled to the floor (72).” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1006,
`
`fig. 1, 3:20–24).
`
`
`
`14
`
`ARTSANA EXHIBIT 1017-14
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501 B2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner again asserts that Rupert fails to describe this element.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 33. Patent Owner asserts that the grommets of Rupert are not
`
`the claimed first connectors. According to Patent Owner, the grommets are
`
`openings that pass completely through Rupert’s floor 72, and through which
`
`Rupert’s ribs 50 can freely pass. We are pointed to Ex. 1006, 3:20–24,
`
`which recites:
`
`The lower end portions of the ribs 50, after passing through the
`rib tunnels 68, pass through grommets 70 in a tent floor 72 of
`flexible material such as fabric and preferable sewed or
`otherwise secured to the lower ends of the gussets 66.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner that Rupert’s grommets and floor do not
`
`
`
`disclose the claimed bottom surface “having connectors.” The grommets are
`
`above the floor. As a consequence, Rupert does not describe the invention
`
`as claimed.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not established a
`
`likelihood of prevailing on this ground, and decline to initiate a review as
`
`regards claims 14 and 19, on this ground.
`
`
`
`E. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–13, 15, 16, and 18 over Dole and
`Graco
`
`i. The References
`
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the
`
`Dole assembly as a suitable play gym frame, and that it would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to couple the floor mat of Dole to
`
`the play yard or bassinet of Graco to arrive at the claimed invention. Pet. 29.
`
`
`
`Petitioner further asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that Dole and Graco would combine easily to result in placing
`
`
`
`15
`
`ARTSANA EXHIBIT 1017-15
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501 B2
`
`the Dole hub and leg framework and floor mat inside the Graco play yard or
`
`bassinet. Id. Additionally, it is urged, that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand that the floor mat of the play gym could be coupled to the
`
`play yard or bassinet. Id. According to the Petitioner, Graco suggests
`
`attaching a toy bar capable of suspending an object above the floor of the
`
`bassinet or play yard. Id.
`
`
`
`Petitioner concludes that these references provide one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art with a motivation to combine the teachings of Graco and Dole to
`
`arrive at a play yard or bassinet as claimed in claim 1. Pet 29 (citing Ex.
`
`1010 ¶ 35, 59–60).
`
`
`
`
`
`ii. Procedural Issue
`
`Preliminarily, Patent Owner asserts that both Dole and Graco were
`
`before the United States Patent and Trademark Office during prosecution of
`
`the ’501 patent. The Patent Owner then asserts that the Board should deny
`
`this ground solely on this basis. Prelim. Resp. 35–36.
`
`
`
`We observe that 35 U.S.C. § 325 (d) provides the Director with
`
`discretion to take into account the fact that the same or substantially the
`
`same prior art was before the Office. We decline to exercise that discretion
`
`in this case. Patent Owner has pointed to no substantial prosecution
`
`concerning this reference, which would indicate that the Examiner or the
`
`Office focused specific attention to Dole, or its relationship with Graco and
`
`the issued claims, such that this review would be duplicative, superfluous, or
`
`unnecessary.
`
`
`
`
`
`iii. Whether Dole is Analogous
`
`Patent Owner also asserts that the Dole patent is non-analogous art, as
`
`it is directed to collapsible shelters. Prelim. Resp. 36. More specifically,
`
`
`
`16
`
`ARTSANA EXHIBIT 1017-16
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501 B2
`
`Patent Owner argues that “[t]he ’501 patent ‘relates generally to child care
`
`products, and, more particularly, to play gyms and methods of operating the
`
`same.’” Prelim. Resp. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:20–22.)
`
`
`
`The test for analogous art, as set forth by our reviewing court, is a
`
`two-part consideration. A reference is considered analogous prior art: (1) if
`
`the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed subject
`
`matter, regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) if “the reference still is
`
`reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
`
`involved,” even though the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s
`
`endeavor. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`
`
`The field of endeavor test asks if the structure and function of the
`
`prior art is such that it would be considered by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, because of the similarity to the structure and function of the claimed
`
`invention as disclosed in the application. It is necessary to apply common
`
`sense in deciding in which fields a person of ordinary skill would reasonably
`
`be expected to look for a solution to the problem facing the inventor. See
`
`Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325–27.
`
`A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in
`a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one
`which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically
`would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in
`considering his problem. Thus, the purposes of both the
`invention and the prior art are important in determining whether
`the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem the
`invention attempts to solve. If a reference disclosure has the
`same purpose as the claimed invention, the reference relates to
`the same problem, and that fact supports use of that reference in
`an obviousness rejection. An inventor may well have been
`motivated to consider the reference when making his invention.
`If it is directed to a different purpose, the inventor would
`accordingly have had less motivation or occasion to consider it.
`
`
`
`17
`
`ARTSANA EXHIBIT 1017-17
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501 B2
`
`
`
`In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
`
`
`
`According to Patent Owner, the ’501 patent’s field of endeavor is an
`
`infant play gym, play yard, and bassinet, while Dole relates to the
`
`construction of shelters and more particularly to the construction of
`
`improved collapsible shelters. Prelim. Resp. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1003 1:8–
`
`10).
`
`
`
`Dole is said to claim and describe a collapsible tent construction
`
`having a pliable shelter member, collapsible legs, and a resilient, extensible
`
`element connected to and extending through all sections of a leg. The ’501
`
`patent play gym is said to include no shelter or tent member, or shock cords
`
`running through leg sections. Prelim. Resp. at 38.
`
`
`
`Dole’s function is also urged to differ such that it would not be
`
`considered by a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’501 patent.
`
`Specifically, the provision of a shelter construction that is quickly set up and
`
`collapsed is said to differ from a children’s play gym, which functions to
`
`suspend an object such as a toy over the play yard. Id. at 38–39.
`
`
`
` Dole’s purpose is also urged to differ in that Dole is said to be
`
`directed at providing a collapsible shelter without problems of prior art
`
`shelters, including: a multitude of individual parts; severed parts susceptible
`
`to being mislaid; fitting together being tedious and difficult; the shelter
`
`enclosure not being an integral component; structural parts being unwieldly
`
`in shape and size; and fabrication being costly. Id. at 39.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner contrasts the purpose of the ’501 patent as providing a
`
`play gym structured to suspend an object such as a toy above a mat in two
`
`modes—a first mode when the mat is positioned in either a bassinet or play
`
`
`
`18
`
`ARTSANA EXHIBIT 1017-18
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501 B2
`
`yard, and a second mode when the mat is removed from the bassinet or play
`
`yard and positioned on another surface such as the floor of a house. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 39. Patent Owner concludes that these differences in purpose preclude
`
`a finding that Dole is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by
`
`the ’501 patent’s inventors.
`
`
`
`Although we have carefully considered all of these factors outlined by
`
`Patent Owner, several facts come to the forefront. First, the similarities of
`
`the two structures, that is, the structure of Dole and the cited structure of a
`
`play gym in the Specification of the ’501 patent, are remarkable. Utilizing
`
`the four legs attached to a mat to perform a suspending function is virtually
`
`identical in both instances, regardless of how the legs are constructed. We,
`
`thus, find that this evidence tends to support that both the Dole patent and
`
`the patent at issue are in the same field of endeavor.
`
`
`
`Second, the Patent Owner’s stated field of endeavor and that of the
`
`Dole patent are not as distant as Patent Owner asserts. Common sense
`
`dictates that a shelter enclosure for camping such as Dole can be put to use
`
`as an infant or child play area, and both collapsible play yards and
`
`collapsible tents are made to be portable devices for housing individuals.
`
`The claims at issue presently are not limited by size, and intended use does
`
`not provide sufficient structure to differentiate them, on this record, On this
`
`record, we think this tends to support a finding that Dole would logically
`
`commend itself to one presented with the ’501 patent’s solution to the
`
`problem of suspending an object in a play yard.
`
`
`
`In sum, we think the fields of endeavor are somewhat broader than
`
`laid out by the Patent Owner, and the structure closely related. Accordingly,
`
`
`
`19
`
`ARTSANA EXHIBIT 1017-19
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501 B2
`
`we are of the view, informed by the standards as set forth by the Supreme
`
`Court, that Dole is analogous art.8
`
`iv. Claim 1
`
`“An apparatus comprising: at least one of a play yard or a bassinet”
`
`Petitioner asserts that Graco teaches at least one of a play yard or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`bassinet, citing pages 1 and 19 and Figure 1. Pet. 27. The Pack ’N Play is
`
`said to be for “playing or sleeping.” Ex. 1004, 2.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a perspective view of a Pack ’N Play
`
`“a floor mat dimensioned to substantially cover a floor of the play
`
`
`
`
`
`yard or bassinet”
`
`
`8 “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and
`other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a
`different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
`variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a
`technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
`same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
`beyond his or her skill. Sakraida and Anderson’s-Black Rock are
`illustrative—a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`functions.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
`
`
`
`20
`
`ARTSANA EXHIBIT 1017-20
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that Graco describes a floor mat that substantially
`
`covers a floor of the play yard or the bassinet. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1004, figs.
`
`7, 44).
`
`Graco Figure 7, illustrating a floor mat, is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 7 is a perspective view of a play yard and floor mat
`
`
`
`
`
`“the floor mat having a connector positioned in proximity to a
`
`perimeter edge of the floor mat”
`
`Petitioner asserts that Dole describes a connector that is positioned
`
`
`
`in proximity to a perimeter edge of the floor mat. Pet. 27. We are directed
`
`to Dole Figures 1 and 2, which are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Dole Figure 1 is a perspective view of a shelter
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARTSANA EXHIBIT 1017-21
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501 B2
`
`
`Dole Figure 2 is a fragmentary perspective view of a connector
`
`
`
`
`
`“the floor mat to couple to at least one of the play yard or the bassinet
`when the floor mat is located within the play yard or the bassinet”
`
`Petitioner alleges that Graco teaches a floor mat that “couples” to the
`
`
`
`play yard or the bassinet when the floor mat is located within the play yard
`
`or the bassinet. Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1004, figs. 7, 8, 44).
`
`Graco Figure 8 is the most illustrative and reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 8 is a perspective view of a mat connector
`
`“a play gym to suspend an object above the floor mat”
`
`Petitioner states that Dole teaches a hub and leg framework that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`suspends a tent above the floor mat. Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1003, fig. 1, 5:27–
`
`50). Petitioner does not discuss how this equates to a “play gym.”
`
`
`
`Patent Owner is of the view that equating a play gym to this hub and
`
`leg frame work is an “unreasonably broad interpretation” of the term “play
`
`gym” and we should disregard this interpretation. Prelim. Resp. 12.
`
`
`
`22
`
`ARTSANA EXHIBIT 1017-22
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501 B2
`
`
`
`Citing a reexamination proceeding of the parent application, Patent
`
`Owner urges that the Office’s previous holding that a prior art reference to a
`
`cabana9 would not be a “play gym.” Prelim. Resp. 13–15. We note that the
`
`inter partes reexamination in question turned on a different issue, as to
`
`whether a structure was collapsible by pulling a leg out of the hub.10 As a
`
`consequence, although the finding that the specific structure in Custer was
`
`not a play gym in a reexamination proceeding is instructive, it is not in any
`
`way binding upon the Board in this trial proceeding.
`
`
`
`Dole has a structure with two flexible arches coupled to a rectangular
`
`mat. Compare, as noted above, the description of the arched structure in Ex.
`
`1001, 1:61–66. We are pointed to no structure that makes Dole unsuited for
`
`suspending an object or that physically differentiates it from the prior art
`
`play gym.
`
`“the play gym having a fastener to engage the connector of the floor
`
`mat to couple the play gym to the floor mat”
`
`Petitioner asserts that Dole describes a frame with a fastener to engage
`
`
`
`the connector of the floor to couple the frame to the floor mat. Pet. 28
`
`(citing Ex. 1003, fig. 2). According to Petitioner, Figure 2, reproduced
`
`above, illustrates a connector.
`
`“the floor mat to couple the play gym to the play yard or the bassinet
`
`when the play gym is positioned in one of the play yard or the bassinet.”
`
`Finally, Petitioner asserts that Graco teaches the floor mat couples to
`
`
`
`the play yard when located in the play yard. Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1004, figs. 7,
`
`8, 44). We are not pointed to contrary evidence by Patent Owner.
`
`9 Custer, U.S. Patent No. 6,109,280.
`10 Reexamination Proceeding 95/000,514, Official Action February 12,
`2