`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`
`ARTSANA USA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`___________
`
`Case IPR2015-__________
`
`Patent 8,388,501
`___________
`
`
`SECOND PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,388,501
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1
`
`I.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) .................... 1
`
`A. REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ......... 1
`
`B. RELATED MATTERS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................... 1
`
`C. LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL UNDER 37 C.F.R.
` § 42(b)(3) .............................................................................................. 2
`
`D. SERVICE INFORMATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42(b)(4) ................ 2
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .................................. 2
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS OF INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104 ......................................................................................................... 3
`
`A. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................. 3
`
`B. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b) AND RELIEF REQUESTED............................................ 3
`
`
`1. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) ................................... 4
`
`2. IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIFIC STATUTORY
`GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§42.104(b)(2) .................................................................... 4
`
`a. PRIOR ART PATENTS AND PRINTED
`PUBLICATIONS ........................................................ 4
`
`b. EXPERT AFFIDAVIT ................................................ 5
`
`3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE ................... 5
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GROUND 1 ...................................................................... 5
`GROUND 2 ...................................................................... 5
`GROUND 3 ...................................................................... 5
`GROUND 4 ...................................................................... 5
`
`V.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES ................................................................................ 5
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘501 PATENT ....................................................... 7
`
`
`A. PRIORITY AND CLAIMS OF THE ‘501 PATENT ........................... 8
`
`B. THE ADMITTED PRIOR ART IN THE ‘501 PATENT..................... 8
`
`C. THE EMBODIMENTS OF THE ‘501 PATENT ................................. 9
`
`1. PLAY YARDS AND BASSINETS OF THE ‘501
`PATENT ........................................................................ .10
`
`2. THE FLOOR MAT OF THE ‘501 PATENT ................ .10
`
`3. THE PLAY GYM OF THE ‘501 PATENT ................... 11
`
`
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................... 13
`
`VIII. SUMMARY OF REFERENCES………………………………….……13
`
`A. DOLE .................................................................................................. 13
`B. GRACO ............................................................................................... 15
`C. CENTURY .......................................................................................... 15
`D. RUPERT .............................................................................................. 16
`E. TYCO .................................................................................................. 17
`
`IX. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ................................................. 20
`
`A. GROUND 1 ......................................................................................... 20
`B. GROUND 2 ......................................................................................... 32
`C. GROUND 3 ......................................................................................... 35
`D. GROUND 4 ......................................................................................... 40
`
`X. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 43
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT TABLE
`
`Due to the fact that Petitioner’s co-pending Inter Partes Review involving
`
`the ‘501 Patent (IPR-2014-01053) (“first IPR proceeding”) remains pending
`
`Petitioner started new exhibits in this petition from the last same exhibit number in
`
`the first IPR proceeding. To the extent that exhibits from the first IPR proceeding
`
`are used in this petition, they are identified with the same numbers; exhibits from
`
`the first IPR proceeding that are not used in this proceeding are identified as not
`
`used.
`
` EXHIBIT NO.
`
`DOCUMENT
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,388,501 to Myers et al. (“the ‘501 Patent”)
`
`Complaint filed July 8, 2013 in the case of Kolcraft Enterprises,
`Inc. v. Artsana USA,Inc., No. 1:13-cv-04863 (N.D. Ill.)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,223,098 to Dole (“Dole”)
`
`Graco Pack ‘N Play Model No. 386-11-01 Owner’s Manual (©
`2001) (“Graco”)
`
`Century Fold-n-Go Care Center Manual (January 1998)
`(“Century”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,948,287 to Rupert (“Rupert”)
`
`Not used in this proceeding
`
`Not used in this proceeding
`
`Not used in this proceeding
`
`Not used in this proceeding
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`Curriculum vitae of Jerome J. Drobinski
`
`Not used in this proceeding
`
`Not used in this proceeding
`
`Not used in this proceeding
`
`1995 Tyco Playtime™ Catalog © 1994 (“Tyco”), cover, inside
`of the front cover, pgs. 6,7
`
`1016
`
`Affidavit of Jerome J. Drobinski
`
`1017
`
`Decision re Institution of Inter Partes Review, Case No.
`IPR2014-01053
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Artsana USA, Inc. (hereinafter “Artsana” or “Petitioner”) submits this
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Second Petition”) seeking a decision of
`
`unpatentable for claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,388,501 (“the ‘501 Patent,”
`
`Exhibit 1001), which is assigned to Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. (hereinafter “Kolcraft”
`
`or “Patent Owner”). Filed concurrently with this Petitioner is a Motion for Joinder
`
`with Case No. IPR2014-01053, the first IPR proceeding. The Motion for Joinder
`
`sets forth the support for instituting this Second Petition and the reasons for joinder.
`
`
`
`All proposed grounds for unpatentability set forth in this Second Petition
`
`rely on Tyco, Exhibit 1015, a 1995 catalog illustrating the Tyco Cozy Quilt Gym,
`
`which is substantively identical to the Tyco Cozy Quilt Gym reference that was
`
`deemed to not be a “printed publication” in the first IPR proceeding. See Exhibit
`
`1017 at pgs. 29-33.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The following mandatory notices are provided as part of this Petition.
`
`A. REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`The real party in interest is Artsana USA, Inc., a New Jersey corporation.
`
`B. RELATED MATTERS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`The following litigation matter would affect or be affected by a decision in
`
`this proceeding: Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. v. Artsana USA, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`04863 (N.D. Ill.). The Complaint, Exhibit 1002, asserts at least claims 1, 9, and 14
`
`of the ‘501 Patent against Petitioner. In addition, the ‘501 Patent is the subject of
`
`an instituted inter partes review, styled as Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft
`
`Enterprises, Inc., Case No. IPR2014-01053 (“IPR2014-01053”). See Exhibit 1017
`
`(IPR2014-01053 Decision).
`
`C. LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42(b)(3)
`
`
`
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel:
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Anthony S. Volpe (Reg. No. 28,377)
`(avolpe@vklaw.com)
`Volpe and Koenig, P.C.
`30 S. 17th Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Tel: (215) 568-6400 x101
`Fax: (215) 568-6499
`
`
`Ryan W. O’Donnell (Reg. No. 53,401)
`(RODonnell@vklaw.com)
`Volpe and Koenig, P.C.
`30 S. 17th Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Tel: (215) 568-6400 x109
`Fax: (215) 568-6499
`
`D. SERVICE INFORMATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42(b)(4)
`
`
`
`
`Please address all correspondence to the lead and back-up counsel at the
`
`address provided in Section II(C) of this Petition. Petitioners also consent to
`
`electronic service by email at: patents@vklaw.com, rodonnell@vklaw.com, and
`
`avolpe@vklaw.com.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`
`
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Patent and Trademark Office to charge the
`
`credit card provided for the fees set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Second
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review. The Office is authorized to charge any fee
`
`deficiency, or credit any overpayment, to Deposit Account No. 220493.
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS OF INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104
`
`A. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner hereby certifies pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) that the ‘501
`
`Patent is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the claims of the ‘501
`
`Patent on the grounds identified herein. Although Petitioner was served more than
`
`one year ago with a Complaint asserting infringement of the ‘501 Patent, the one-
`
`year period for filing a petition for inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`
`does not apply here because (1) the Board has already instituted an Inter Partes
`
`Review trial on the ‘501 Patent based on a timely first petition filed by Petitioner
`
`(Case No. IPR2014-01053), and (2) Petitioner accompanies this Second Petition
`
`with a Motion for Joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Pursuant to and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.122(b), this Second Petition is being timely filed within one month of the
`
`Board’s December 19, 2014 Decision Instituting Inter Partes Review in the first
`
`IPR proceeding.
`
`B. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b) AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`1. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS UNDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1), Petitioner requests that each of the
`
`Challenged Claims (i.e., claims 1-20) be found unpatentable.
`
`2. IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIFIC STATUTORY
`GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b)(2)
`
`
`a. PRIOR ART PATENTS AND PRINTED
`PUBLICATIONS
`
`
` Petitioner relies upon the following, copies of which are filed herewith:
`
`
`
`1. U.S. Patent No. 3,223,098 to Dole (“Dole”) (Ex. 1003);
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 2,948,287 to Rupert (“Rupert”) (Ex. 1006);
`
`3. The Graco Pack ‘N Play Model No. 386-11-01 Owner’s Manual (©2001)
`
`(“Graco”) (Ex. 1004);
`
`4. The Century Fold-n-Go Care Center Manual (January 1998) (“Century”)
`
`(Ex. 1005);
`
`5. 1995 Tyco Playtime™ Catalog © 1994 (“Tyco”) (Ex. 1015).
`
`Dole, Rupert, Graco, and Century were of record in the prosecution of the
`
`‘501 Patent, but Tyco was not of record.
`
`
`
`Each of the prior art patents and publications qualifies as prior art under
`
`(pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 102(b), and/or 102(e).
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`b. EXPERT AFFIDAVIT
`
`As further support for the Specific Statutory Grounds, Petitioner submits the
`
`Affidavit of Mr. Jerome J. Drobinski (“Drobinski Aff.,” Ex. 1016), which explains
`
`how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand and apply the art. Mr.
`
`Drobinski is highly qualified to analyze the pertinent prior art and explain how it
`
`renders the Challenged Claims unpatentable. His more than twenty-seven (27)
`
`years of experience in the juvenile products industry includes specific experience
`
`in designing and developing play yards, bassinets, and play yard and bassinet
`
`accessories. (Drobinski Aff. ¶¶ 4-10; see also. Ex. 1011).
`
`3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE
`
`
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review based on the Grounds set forth below:
`
`Ground 1:
`
`Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 are obvious over Tyco in view
`
`of Graco under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Ground 2:
`
`Claims 2-5, 8 and 11 are obvious over Tyco in view of Graco
`
`and in further view of Dole under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Ground 3:
`
`Claims 14, 19 and 20 are obvious over Tyco in view of Rupert
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Ground 4:
`
`Claims 15-18 are obvious over Tyco in view of Rupert and in
`
`further view of Century under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`This Petition demonstrates that each Challenged Claim is unpatentable and
`
`that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the Challenged Claims.
`
`See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`V. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims are unpatentable because they would have been
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
`
`[because] the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter
`pertains.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
`
`In KSR, the Supreme Court provided an “expansive and flexible” approach
`
`to the issue of obviousness consistent with the “broad inquiry” set forth in Graham
`
`v. John Deere. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415 (citing Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 17
`
`(1966)). The Court noted that, a person of ordinary skill in the art is “a person of
`
`ordinary creativity, not an automaton” and “in many cases a person of ordinary
`
`skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like the pieces of a
`
`puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21.1
`
`
`1 A person of ordinary skill in the art for the ‘501 patent would have at least an
`
`associate degree and 2 years of experience designing juvenile products, or the
`
`equivalent thereof in education and industry experience. One of ordinary skill in
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`In KSR, the Court stated “[t]he combination of familiar elements according
`
`to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
`
`predictable results.” Id. at 416. Further, “[i]f a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`can implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, §103
`
`likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. With respect to obviousness, the key
`
`inquiry is whether an “improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art
`
`elements according to their established functions.” Id.
`
`
`
`Applying the above standards to this Petition, the Board should find each of
`
`the Challenged Claims unpatentable.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘501 PATENT
`
`
`
`The ‘501 Patent is generally directed to an infant play gym, play yard, and
`
`bassinet. (‘501 Pat., Col. 1, ll. 20-67; Col. 2, ll. 1-4.). In particular, the ‘501 Patent
`
`is directed to connecting a play gym to a floor mat and concepts relating to
`
`positioning the play gym within a play yard and bassinet. (‘501 Pat., Abstract).
`
`The play gym has a hub and leg framework (see, e.g., ‘501 Pat., Figs. 1, 3, 4) that
`
`has been long known in the art. As detailed below, the ‘501 Patent merely applies
`
`basic prior art components in obvious ways.
`
`
`
`
`the art would have substantial familiarity with competitor designs and industry
`
`developments. (Drobinski Aff. ¶ 17).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`A. PRIORITY AND CLAIMS OF THE ‘501 PATENT
`
`The ‘501 Patent has three independent claims (claims 1, 9, and 14) and a
`
`total of 20 claims. The ‘501 Patent is a continuation of U.S. patent application No.
`
`12/062,670, filed on April 4, 2008, and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,257,229, which is
`
`a continuation of U.S. patent application No. 10/725, 071, filed on Dec. 1, 2003,
`
`and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,376,993, which is a continuation of U.S. patent
`
`application No. 10/431,079, filed on May 7, 2003, now abandoned. (‘501 Patent,
`
`Col. 1, ll. 6-11). U.S. Patent No. 7,376,993 is subject to a current inter partes
`
`reexamination proceeding, Reexamination Control No. 95/000,514.
`
`B. THE ADMITTED PRIOR ART IN THE ‘501 PATENT
`
`
`
`As admitted by the ‘501 Patent, portable play yards provided with portable
`
`bassinets and mats with an over-arching play gym were well known prior to the
`
`‘501 Patent and its parent applications. (‘501 Pat., Col. 1, ll. 26-67; accord,
`
`Drobinski Aff. at ¶ 24, 25). The ‘501 Patent acknowledges that prior art play yards
`
`“typically include a frame, a fabric enclosure supported by the frame, and a
`
`removable floor board or mat.” (‘501 Pat., Col. 1, ll. 26-29; accord, Drobinski Aff.
`
`at ¶ 22). 2 The ‘501 Patent also admits that prior art bassinets are “typically
`
`suspended within the top of the play yard by hooking the bassinet to the upper rails
`
`
`2 In the '501 Patent, the terms “floor mat” and “floor board” are equivalent and
`
`interchangable.” (‘501 Pat., Col. 3, ll. 26-27).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`of the play yard frame [] permitting the bassinet to extend downward into the
`
`enclosure of the play yard” and “may have substantially the same size as the play
`
`yard enclosure (i.e., substantially the same width and length).” (‘501 Pat., Col. 1, ll.
`
`37-46; accord, Drobinski Aff. at ¶ 23). The ‘501 Patent provides that “[t]he floor
`
`mat of the play yard may be used as the floor of the play yard and/or the bassinet.”
`
`(‘501 Pat., Col. 1, ll. 54-55; accord Drobinski Aff.at ¶ 24).
`
`
`
`With respect to play gyms, the ‘501 Patent admits to and provides a detailed
`
`description of “a known prior art device”. (‘501 Pat., Col. 1, ll. 61-62; accord,
`
`Drobinski Aff. at ¶ 26). The “known prior art device” is described as “a play gym
`
`having two flexible arches for suspending objects such as toys or the like is
`
`coupled to the corners of a rectangular mat via snaps or the like. The arches cross
`
`and are snapped to one another roughly above the middle of the mat.” (‘501 Pat.,
`
`Col. 1, ll. 61-66; accord Drobinski Aff. at ¶ 26).
`
`C. THE EMBODIMENTS OF THE ‘501 PATENT
`
`
`
`The ‘501 Patent describes and claims known prior art devices (i.e., a play
`
`yard, a bassinet, and a play gym) positioned within one another. As shown in Fig. 1
`
`(below), one embodiment is simply “an example play gym 10 mounted to an
`
`example bassinet 12, which is, in turn, mounted to an example portable play yard
`
`14.” (‘501 Pat., Col. 2, ll. 36-38; see also Drobinski Aff. at ¶ 27). The play gym
`
`mat is described as being separate and distinct from the bassinet and play yard and
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`removable, thus serving the same purpose when placed inside the play yard or on
`
`another surface such as a floor, as shown in alternate embodiments depicted in Figs.
`
`1 and 2 (below). (‘501 Pat., Col. 2, ll. 40-53).
`
`
`
`1. PLAY YARDS AND BASSINETS OF THE ‘501 PATENT
`
`
`
`The ‘501 Patent does not describe the play yard with any specificity. In fact,
`
`the play yard may simply be a prior art play yard “constructed like any of the
`
`portable play yards sold by such companies as Kolcraft Enterprises, Graco
`
`Children’s Products, Evenflo, Cosco, etc.” (‘501 Pat., Col. 2, ll. 60-62). Similarly,
`
`the bassinet may simply be a prior art bassinet “constructed like any of the
`
`bassinets sold by such companies as Kolcraft Enterprises, Graco Children’s
`
`Products, Evenflo, Cosco, etc.” (‘501 Pat., Col. 3, ll. 3-5).
`
`2. THE FLOOR MAT OF THE ‘501 PATENT
`
`
`
`The ‘501 Patent describes the floor mat as being dimensioned for use in both
`
`the play yard and the bassinet. (‘501 Pat., Col. 3, ll. 15-25). The floor mat is
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`described as being either a completely flexible mat made of a soft material (e.g.,
`
`foam, cloth, or plastic) or a partially rigid mat (e.g., including a pad or multiple
`
`solid boards). (‘501 Pat. Col. 3, ll. 26-52). This is consistent with floor mats used
`
`in either the floor of the play yard and/or the bassinet. See Drobinski Aff. at ¶ 24.
`
`The ‘501 Patent provides that the floor mat may be removably secured in the
`
`bassinet or play yard with “any suitable fasteners” such as Velcro strips, or by
`
`gravity alone. (‘501 Pat., Col. 3, ll. 53-58).
`
`3. THE PLAY GYM OF THE ‘501 PATENT
`
`
`
`The play gym is generally described and depicted in Figs. 1-9 as including a
`
`hub and four flexible legs that form an arch over the floor mat. (‘501 Pat., Col. 3, ll.
`
`59-67; Col. 4, ll. 1-2). In particular, the legs are described as being pivotably
`
`coupled to a hub in a series of slots for movement between a stored (parallel)
`
`position to an extended position (radially outward). (‘501 Pat., Col. 4, ll. 13-28).
`
`
`
`The ‘501 Patent is focused on connecting the play gym to a bassinet or play
`
`yard in one mode and connecting the play gym to a mat in another mode. (‘501 Pat.
`
`Col. 2, ll. 46-58; accord, Drobinski Aff. at ¶ 27). The play gym, when not attached
`
`to the floor mat, may be coupled directly to the play yard or bassinet by connectors,
`
`which are described as “fabric pockets 50 which are sewn or otherwise fastened
`
`adjacent to the corners of the bassinet 12 and/or the play yard 14.” (‘501 Pat., Col.
`
`5, ll. 10-22; see also Figs. 1, 6). Alternatively, the play yard or bassinet may be
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`without connectors, and each are described as simply receiving the play gym by
`
`the placement of the play gym within either of the play yard or bassinet when the
`
`play gym is coupled to the floor mat. (‘501 Pat., Col. 5, ll. 50-59). The floor mat
`
`may simply be maintained in place by gravity. (‘501 Pat. Col. 3, ll. 56-58).
`
`
`
`The ‘501 Patent provides that the play gym may be attached to the floor mat
`
`by either pivoting or non-pivoting connectors. (‘501 Pat., Col. 5, ll. 53-59). The
`
`non-pivoting connectors are described as being “located within the perimeter of the
`
`mat and accessible from the top of the mat”. (‘501 Pat., Col. 5, ll. 53-56). The
`
`pivoting connectors are described as a plate defining an aperture that receives the
`
`respective feet and ankles of the respective legs of the play gym in order to couple
`
`the play gym to the floor mat. (‘501 Pat.. Col. 5, ll. 60-67; Col. 6, ll. 1-17). A slot
`
`within the respective apertures provides a channel for the foot. (‘501 Pat., Col. 6,
`
`ll. 9-15).
`
`
`
`The proclaimed purpose of a pivoting connector is to allow the connector to
`
`be pivoted beneath the floor mat, so it does not interfere with the play yard or the
`
`bassinet when the floor mat is placed within either of them. (‘501 Pat., Col. 6, ll.
`
`18-41).
`
`
`
`As demonstrated below, the claimed features were disclosed repeatedly in
`
`the art well before the ‘501 Patent’s priority date of May 7, 2003.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In the related first IPR proceeding, IPR2014-01053, the Board construed the
`
`following terms and phrases:
`
` the term “play gym” means “a structure or apparatus which is capable
`
`of suspending an object over a defined area” (Ex. 1017 at pg. 6);
`
` the term “play yard” means “an area delineated by a frame, an
`
`enclosure supported by the frame, and a floor” (Ex. 1017 at pg. 6);
`
` the terms “couple, “coupled,” and “couplable” mean “to [(or able to)]
`
`link, connect, or fasten together” (Ex. 1017 at pg. 6); and
`
` the term “connector” means “a structure attached to the underside of a
`
`floor mat” (Ex. 1017 at pg. 6).
`
`Without conceding that the foregoing is the proper construction of these
`
`terms, Petitioner adopts the Board’s constructions in the first IPR proceeding for
`
`the limited purpose of this Petition.
`
`VIII. SUMMARY OF REFERENCES
`
`A. Dole
`
`Dole, entitled “Collapsible Shelter Construction”, issued on December 14,
`
`1965, and discloses a tent structure comprising a hub, legs, and a floor mat, all of
`
`which are interconnected (“Dole’s assembly”). (Ex. 1003 at Fig. 1 (below)). One
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would recognize Dole’s assembly as being suitable for
`
`use as a play gym frame. (Drobinski Aff. at ¶ 35.)
`
`
`
`Dole addresses the shortcomings of prior art frame structures that include
`
`assemblies having individual parts that must be separated prior to folding and are
`
`susceptible to being misplaced or lost. (Ex. 1003 at Col. 1, ll. 10-31). Dole solves
`
`these problems with “...a sectioned exterior frame-work, the individual sections of
`
`which remain interconnected whether in set-up, collapsed, or folded condition.” (Id.
`
`at Col. 1, ll. 37-40, Figs. 1, 4, and 5). In addition, Dole discloses (id. at Col., 5, ll.
`
`32-43) connecting the frame work to a floor mat as illustrated in Fig. 2 (below),
`
`and folding the framework into a storage position on the multiple pivotal axes
`
`joined to the hub (id. at Col. 5, ll. 1-26) as illustrated in Fig. 4 (below).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`B. Graco
`
`This owner’s manual for the Graco Pack ‘N Play® play yard and bassinet
`
`has a 2001 copyright date. (Ex. 1004 at pg. 1). Graco discloses setup and use of
`
`the play yard along with a floor mat or mattress that is placed onto a floor of the
`
`play yard. (Id. at pg. 7, Figs. 5-8). As shown in Fig. 8, the underside of the floor
`
`mat or mattress includes a fastener at its perimeter edge, described as a VELCRO®
`
`strap that is threaded through a slot on the play yard floor and attached to the
`
`underside of the unit. (Id. at pg. 7, Fig. 8). Graco teaches placement of the floor
`
`mat in a bassinet. (Id. at pg. 19-20, Figs. 43-50). Graco also teaches that a toy bar
`
`can be suspended above the play yard. (Id. at Figs. 29-32).
`
`C. Century
`
` This Manual for the Century Fold-n-Go™ Care Center play yard and
`
`bassinet has a January 1998 date in the lower left hand corner of the cover page.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`(Ex. 1005 at pg. 1). Century includes set up and use instructions of a play yard or
`
`bassinet with a floor mat. (Id. at pgs. 2-5). The floor mat is secured to the play yard
`
`by “passing [the] attachment strap through [a] hole in [the] bottom of play yard
`
`floor and securing attachment strap to underside of play yard.” (Id. at Fig. 8, pg. 4).
`
`Century also teaches a bassinet where the floor mat is placed in the bassinet to
`
`create the structure of the bassinet. (Id. at Figs. 6-8, pg. 6).
`
`D. Rupert
`
`
`
`Rupert, entitled “Quickly-Erectable Folding Portable Shelter,” issued on
`
`August 9, 1960, discloses a portable framework having legs coupled to a hub at
`
`one end and a floor mat at another end. (Ex. 1006 at Fig. 1 (below)).
`
`
`
`Rupert teaches that the legs are pivotally mounted to a hub with radial slots
`
`(Id. at Col. 2, ll. 40-69), to be erected above a floor mat, as shown in Fig. 1 (above),
`
`or folded with the legs positioned parallel to one another as shown in Figs. 4 and 5
`
`
`
`(below).
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`E. Tyco
`
`This catalog “was produced by Tyco Playtime, Inc., in conjunction with the
`
`Children’s Television Workshop, producers of Sesame Street.” (Ex. 1015, inside of
`
`the front cover). The inside of the front cover includes multiple copyright dates
`
`from multiple rights holders. (Ex. 1015, inside of the front cover). There is a 1994
`
`copyright date associated with the Children’s Television Workshop, Jim Henson
`
`Productions, Inc. and Tyco Playtime, Inc. (Ex. 1015, inside of the front cover).
`
`Pages 6 and 7 of the catalog feature product number 52105, titled “Cozy Quilt
`
`Gym.” (Ex. 1015 at pgs. 6,7). Page 6 includes a picture of the “Cozy Quilt Gym”
`
`in a set up position, and text advertising the features of the “Cozy Quilt Gym.” (Ex.
`
`1015 at pg. 6). Page 7 includes additional pictures of the “Cozy Quilt Gym” and
`
`text advertising additional features of the “Cozy Quilt Gym.” (Ex. 1015 at pg. 7).
`
`Page 7 also features product number 8877, titled “Baby Play Gym” and text
`
`advertising the features of that product. (Ex. 1015 at pg. 7).
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`Hereinafter, “Tyco” refers to product number 52105, titled “Cozy Quilt
`
`Gym,” featured on pages 6 and 7 of the 1995 Tyco Playtime™ Catalog.
`
`Tyco discloses a play gym structure that forms crossing arches at a point
`
`above the floor mat. (Ex. 1015 at pg. 6, 7). The crossing arches are connected to
`
`the floor mat at their ends. (Ex. 1015 at pg. 6, (below)).
`
`
`
`Each leg of Tyco includes a fastener (a red clip) that couples to a connector
`
`(white loop) that is attached on the underside of the floor mat. (Ex. 1015, pg. 6).
`
`The fastener (red clip) has an opening to allow it to be attached/detached from the
`
`connector (white loop). (Ex. 1015, pg. 7 (below)).
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`Tyco also discloses suspending an object from the structure above the floor
`
`mat, such as a toy. (Ex. 1015 at pg. 6 (below)).
`
`
`
`
`
`The 1995 Tyco Playtime™ Catalog also discloses that play gyms could be
`
`used within a playpen structure or on the floor, independent of a playpen structure.
`
`(Ex. 1015 at pg. 7 (below)).
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`IX. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner now details each ground of unpatentability of the Challenged
`
`Claims:
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 are obvious over Tyco in
`view of Graco.
`
`
`The claim charts below and the Drobinski Aff. demonstrate that claims 1, 6,
`
`
`
`7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of the ‘501 Patent are obvious over Tyco in view of Graco. The
`
`below claim charts show the relevant scope and content of the prior art, as well as
`
`the lack of differences between the challenged claims and the prior art combination
`
`of Tyco and Graco. (See Drobinski Aff. at ¶¶ 50-56). Both Tyco and Graco are of
`
`the same field of endeavor, play gyms and play yards. As a competitive product at
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`the time, Tyco would have been known to one of skill in the art in the industry.
`
`(Drobinski Aff. at ¶ 17).
`
`
`
`As demonstrated below, the subject matter of independent claim 1 would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Tyco and Graco.
`
`(Drobinski Aff. at ¶ 51).
`
`Claim 1 of the
`‘501 Patent
`1. An apparatus
`comprising: at least
`one of a play yard
`or a bassinet;
`
`Disclosure in Tyco and Graco
`
`Graco teaches a play yard and a bassinet. Graco at pg. 1 and
`Fig. 44, pg. 19.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Graco teaches a floor mat that substantially covers a floor of
`the play yard or bassinet. Graco at Fig. 7, pg. 7 and Fig. 44,
`pg. 19.
`
`
`
`a floor mat
`dimensioned to
`substantially cover
`a floor of the play
`yard or the
`bassinet,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`Tyco teaches a connector (white fabric loop) positioned in
`proximity to a perimeter edge of the floor mat. Tyco at pg.
`6.
`
`
`
`
`
`Graco teaches the floor mat “couples” to the play yard when
`located in the play yard or bassinet. Graco at Figs. 7-8, pg.
`7, and Fig. 44, pg. 19.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`a play gym to
`suspend an object
`above the floor
`mat,
`
`Tyco teaches a play gym frame to suspend an object above
`the floor mat. Tyco at pg. 6.
`
`
`
`
`
`Tyco teaches a play gym having a fastener (red clip) to
`engage the connector (white fabric loop) of the floor mat to
`couple the play gym to the floor mat. Tyco at pgs. 6, 7.
`
`
`
`the play gym
`having a fastener to
`engage the
`connector of the
`floor mat to couple
`the play gym to the
`floor mat,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`Graco teaches the floor mat “couples” to the play yard or
`bassinet when located in the play yard. Figs. 7-8, pg. 7, Fig.
`44, pg. 19.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
`
`Graco play yard or bassinet with the Tyco play gym to arrive at the subject matter
`
`of claim 1. (Drobinski Aff. at ¶ 51). Tyco and Graco would be easily combined by
`
`placing Tyco’s play gym inside Graco’s play yard or bassinet, and that they could
`
`be coupled together by a variety of known methods, such as the VELCRO®
`
`fasteners taught by Graco or the force of gravity. (Id). In addition, and as discussed
`
`above, Graco, at Figs. 29-32, suggests attaching a frame capable of suspending an
`
`object above the floor of the bassinet