UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00774
`Case IPR2015-00958
`Patent No. 8,585,136 B2
`
`J SQUARED, INC., d/b/a
`UNIVERSITY LOFT COMPANY,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`vs.
`
`SAUDER MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
`
`Patent owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________________________________/
`
`Administrative Patent Judges:
`Linda E. Horner
`Josiah C. Cocks
`James A. Worth
`_______________________________________/
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ANTHONY J. WARNCKE
`
`
`
`1
`
`Sauder Exhibit 2046
`JSquared Inc. v Sauder Manufacturing Co.
`IPR2015-00774
`
`

`
`I, Anthony J. Warncke do hereby declare as follows:
`
`
`
`PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS AND BACKGROUND
`
`Since February 2000 I have been an employee of the Sauder Manufacturing Company hereinafter
`
`“Sauder”, located in Archbold, Ohio. On information and belief, Sauder is the owner of United States
`
`Patent No. 8,585,136 “CHAIR WITH COUPLING COMPANION STOOL BASE”, hereinafter the “’136 patent”
`
`At this time I am the Director of Product Development for Sauder. Prior to this position I was the
`
`manager of product development and marketing. I am a co-inventor in the ‘136 patent along with
`
`Jeffrey A. Jameson and Thomas A. Hagerty.
`
`I am a 1991 alumnus of the former GMI Engineering & Management Institute (now Kettering University).
`
`I graduated with a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering (BSME). In 1995 I received a master’s
`
`degree in business (MBA) from the Max M. Fisher College of Business at The Ohio State University.
`
`Possessing over twenty-five years of professional experience, I’ve worked in engineering, purchasing,
`
`marketing, and product development roles in both the automotive and contract furniture industries. I
`
`have experience and training with injection-molded plastics, metal stampings/formings, design for
`
`manufacturing and assembly (DFMA), systems-integrations, upholstery, product testing, quality systems
`
`& management, and market research. I am, and was in 2004, a person of ordinary or better skill in the
`
`field of furniture design including and in particular seating. In addition to the ‘136 patent, I possess five
`
`other furniture-related patents, with several others currently in various stages of application and
`
`prosecution. Three of these current patents (D585,204, 8,083,288 and 8,960,787) are on behalf of the
`
`Sauder Trey® chair (in additional to the subject ‘136 patent). The other two -- 9,027,178 and 9,125,496 -
`
`- are on behalf of a multi-functional sleep sofa for hospital patient rooms.
`
`I am informed that the ‘136 patent is the subject of two Inter Partes Reviews (IPR’s) resulting from
`
`Petitions filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by J Squared, Inc. d/b/a UNIVERSITY
`
`LOFT COMPANY, and that claims 1, 2 and 4-14 of the ‘136 patent are at issue as to validity in ways that I
`
`will discuss in detail in this declaration. I have read the Petitions, the Decision of the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board Judges on those Petitions and the prior art on which the Board has based its decisions.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`2
`
`Sauder Exhibit 2046
`JSquared Inc. v Sauder Manufacturing Co.
`IPR2015-00774
`
`

`
`27
`
`HISTORY
`
`28
`
`29
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`33
`
`34
`
`35
`
`36
`
`37
`
`38
`
`39
`
`40
`
`41
`
`42
`
`43
`
`44
`
`45
`
`46
`
`47
`
`48
`
`49
`
`50
`
`51
`
`Sauder is a company which designs, develops, manufacturers, and markets chairs for the Education (ED)
`
`market. To Sauder, the ED market is Colleges and Universities. While Sauder has sold chairs into
`
`housing, dining, library, and other settings on college campuses, it is housing that has been and is by far
`
`the largest portion of our sales into the ED market. “Housing” means Residence Halls or dormitories
`
`(dorms) where students live.
`
`Our target user for the ‘136 chair was from the very beginning and always remained college students.
`
`This means young adults roughly 18-22 years of age. The ‘136 chair was not designed for nor intended
`
`for use by children under the age of thirteen.
`
`Constituents or decision-makers beyond students whom Sauder and its products must serve in the sale
`
`of residence hall seating include Student Housing Administrators (e.g., Directors of Housing),
`
`Facilities/Maintenance personnel, and Resident Advisors (RAs) among others. Each of these individuals
`
`has priorities for selection of chairs which must be considered, including cost, durability, warranty,
`
`serviceability, comfort, and student appeal.
`
`Sauder’s longtime best-selling product within the ED market was at the time of the ‘136 invention its
`
`PlyLok® family of chairs (EXHIBIT 2047). The PlyLok family offers a number of different variants,
`
`including seat widths and base frame styles. PlyLok chairs are available in what are called four-legged,
`
`sled-base, 2-position, and 3-position models.
`
`CONVERGENCE OF CONDITIONS OR ELEMENTS FOR INNOVATION
`
`At the time of the ‘136 invention, there was a convergence of a number of conditions. These included
`
`Business Risk for Sauder, the advent of Task Chairs as a serious competitor in Residence Hall desk
`
`seating, and changing lifestyle needs and expectations of students and their parents (see Figure 1).
`
`Combine these conditions with a design brief which directed our attention to developing a chair which
`
`embraced these realities, and a conceptual “catalyst” for a multi-functional chair was conceived. Each
`
`of these conditions and elements will be discussed in turn below.
`
`52
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Sauder Exhibit 2046
`JSquared Inc. v Sauder Manufacturing Co.
`IPR2015-00774
`
`

`
`53
`
`54
`
`55
`
`56
`
`57
`
`58
`
`59
`
`60
`
`61
`
`62
`
`63
`
`
`
`Business Risk
`
`Figure 1
`
`
`
`At the time of the ‘136 invention, PlyLok was Sauder’s top-selling product line in the ED market, and a
`
`significant portion of SMC’s overall sales. Within the PlyLok product line, the 3-position model was its
`
`clear market leader and offered differentiation from competitors in college desk seating at that time.
`
`Although it was protected by a patent (US #D329,340), the patent was scheduled to expire in 2006.
`
`Sauder’s 2-position PlyLok chair design had been copied by competitors in years past, so it was entirely
`
`reasonable to expect that once the patent expired, the 3-position PlyLok’s design would be copied, too.
`
`The entire PlyLok product line would then be largely undifferentiated in the average customer’s eyes,
`
`and Sauder’s competitive position and pricing power within the market could likely have been severely
`
`diminished.
`
`64
`
`Something needed to be done to change the path we were on.
`
`65
`
`66
`
`67
`
`68
`
`69
`
`70
`
`71
`
`72
`
`73
`
`Task Chairs
`
`At or about that same time, Sauder’s independent Sales Representatives were informing us that they
`
`had begun to hear some of their more progressive customers asking for what is commonly referred to as
`
`task chairs, e.g., desk chairs with 5-star bases, tilt/swivel/height adjustment capabilities, casters, and
`
`constructed of metal and plastic, not wood (see Figure 2). Some schools had even gone to office
`
`product retailers like Staples® to buy such products because their schools’ normal furniture suppliers,
`
`Sauder included, weren’t selling them. Contract-grade products of this type (for instance, from large
`
`furniture companies such as Herman-Miller and Steelcase) could not be found at colleges’ low target
`
`purchase price. Retail-grade chairs , while lower in cost, just weren’t reliable. The retail chairs wouldn’t
`
`
`
`4
`
`BUSINESS RISK
`3-Position PlyLok patent expiring
`(Leading product becoming a ‘commodity’)
`
`“FLASK”
`Floor Rocker +
`Task Chair
`
`OPPORTUNITY
`Student Lifestyle
`(TV, video game systems, laptops, bean-bag
`chairs,…)
`
`TASK CHAIRS
`Market Reality
`
`Sauder Exhibit 2046
`JSquared Inc. v Sauder Manufacturing Co.
`IPR2015-00774
`
`

`
`74
`
`75
`
`76
`
`77
`
`78
`
`79
`
`80
`
`81
`
`82
`
`83
`
`84
`
`85
`
`86
`
`87
`
`88
`
`89
`
`90
`
`91
`
`92
`
`93
`
`94
`
`95
`
`96
`
`97
`
`98
`
`99
`
`last long, didn’t carry the desired warranties, weren’t supported by their manufacturers or distributors,
`
`and couldn’t be serviced.
`
`We at Sauder were also seeing from our own research into dorm life that some students were beginning
`
`to bring their own desk chairs to school with them. Evidently, these students were accustomed to task
`
`chairs in their home, and preferred them over what the colleges were providing. However, this trend
`
`caused some campus housing professionals and maintenance personnel no small amount of
`
`consternation. When students pushed aside the college’s chairs in favor of their own, the colleges
`
`needed to store them or else face the chance that the chairs would simply disappear. Either way,
`
`students bringing their own desk chairs to campus could cost the colleges extra money.
`
`A change in the desk chair market for dorms was afoot. However, Sauder recognized that jumping into
`
`the market with just another task chair was not a recipe for competitive and financial success. After all,
`
`the components necessary for the creation of a basic low-cost task chair – tilt/swivel mechanisms,
`
`height adjustable gas springs, 5-star chair bases with casters, and even basic seat and back cushions –
`
`were all available to chair manufacturers in the open marketplace from East Asian suppliers.
`
`Conceivably, anyone could build a basic task chair with little investment required. (Figure 2)
`
`It was becoming apparent that Sauder would need to conceive and develop an innovative and
`
`meaningfully differentiated product to remain a leader in the college and university desk chair market.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2
`
`Opportunity
`
`Through investment in market research, Sauder had begun to recognize a number of trends within and
`
`among college housing, students, and their parents. We concluded that where these trends departed
`
`
`
`5
`
`Sauder Exhibit 2046
`JSquared Inc. v Sauder Manufacturing Co.
`IPR2015-00774
`
`

`
`100
`
`from the accepted norm, there could be gaps between what the available products could offer and what
`
`101
`
`customers now wanted or needed (whether they could actually identify or express their needs or not).
`
`102
`
`These gaps represent opportunity. Among the trends recognized at this time:
`
`103
`
`Personal electronics were just beginning to take hold. It was not unusual for college students to now
`
`104
`
`have televisions, DVD players, and video gaming consoles in their room. Cell phones were not
`
`105
`
`uncommon. Students were spending much more time relaxing and socializing in their rooms, watching
`
`106
`
`movies, talking on their phones. Among young men, multi-player console gaming in one room was quite
`
`107
`
`popular. Laptops were becoming more common, as were wireless networks. Students could now study
`
`108
`
`and use their computer without being tethered to a computer lab or their dorm room desk.
`
`109
`
`Parents were also becoming much more involved in their students’ lives (some would say excessively so;
`
`110
`
`the term “helicopter parent” was coined for these overprotective parents). They and their students
`
`111
`
`wanted more comfortable spaces and amenities in their residence halls. Students sometimes brought in
`
`112
`
`beanbag chairs or even sofas for lounging in their rooms. College administrators had begun to
`
`113
`
`appreciate the role student housing could play in both attracting and retaining students. Furthermore,
`
`114
`
`student housing accommodations had become a source of income for schools. Administrators were
`
`115
`
`aware of the increasing demands of students and parents, and were prepared to invest in products that
`
`116
`
`helped meet them. But at the same time, the small size of traditional dorm rooms was still a constraint.
`
`117
`
`In addition to researching customer trends, Sauder also performed a comprehensive analysis of our
`
`118
`
`competitors in college dorm room seating. This resulted in a visual we called the “Sea of Sameness”
`
`119
`
`(Exhibit 2048) which illustrated the lack of differentiation in the market.
`
`120
`
`The conclusion we drew from all this research was that it seemed likely a business opportunity existed,
`
`121
`
`but as always, the trick would be discovering what it was
`
`122
`
`
`
`123
`
`Design Brief
`
`124
`
`In August, 2003, I generated a Design Brief, (Exhibit 2049) that outlined Sauder’s learnings regarding our
`
`125
`
`ED market position, customer and user needs and expectations, product requirements, and perceived
`
`126
`
`opportunities for a new student desk chair. It identified our targeted application and users as being the
`
`127
`
`college resident hall (“dorm”) rooms, the college professionals who specified and purchased furniture
`
`128
`
`for those rooms, and students who used them. The Design Brief captured what Sauder had come to
`
`
`
`6
`
`Sauder Exhibit 2046
`JSquared Inc. v Sauder Manufacturing Co.
`IPR2015-00774
`
`

`
`129
`
`know and was thinking about at the time, the key elements of which are contained within the Business
`
`130
`
`Risk, Opportunity, and Task Chair sections above. The Design Brief served as a tool to outline and
`
`131
`
`convey this and other information to (ELEVEN) as our design/development partner
`
`132
`
`[(ELEVEN) is a design firm based in Boston, MA, with whom Sauder worked on this project. The bulk of
`
`133
`
`our relationship and exchanges with (ELEVEN) occurred between Ben Beck, Industrial Designer and co-
`
`134
`
`owner of (ELEVEN), and Blair Wieland, Sauder VP of Design. Both of these gentlemen are among the
`
`135
`
`inventors on the Design Patent (D585,204). Tom Hagerty, Mechanical Engineer from (ELEVEN), Dave
`
`136
`
`Harting, Mechanical Engineer, co-owner of (ELEVEN) and Tom’s boss, and I also worked extremely
`
`137
`
`closely. Tom Hagerty, Jeff Jameson, and I are all inventors on the ‘136 patent].
`
`138
`
`It was within this above-described milieu and confluence of learnings and market conditions that Jeff
`
`139
`
`Jameson, at the time a Sauder employee reporting to me, first began sketching concepts for a student
`
`140
`
`desk chair that not only served as a desk chair, but could also be used as a floor rocker. These sketches
`
`141
`
`are shown in Exhibit 2045 with dates of origin between 8/10/04-8/13/04. Jeff’s sketches became the
`
`142
`
`impetus for our venture into multi-functional seating for the dorm room.
`
`143
`
` “FLASK” – The Convergence
`
`144
`
`Working with (ELEVEN), the Sauder concept for a new and differentiated product began to coalesce
`
`145
`
`around the integrated functional combination of a task chair and a floor rocker and a work
`
`146
`
`surface/stool. (Figure 3 – early protocept). The operative name for this new dorm room desk chair
`
`147
`
`became “FLASK” (Floor Rocker + Task Chair = Flask). Recognizing the novelty and business potential of
`
`148
`
`the concept, it quickly became the sole focus of our collaborative work with (ELEVEN) and Sauder’s
`
`149
`
`solitary path of pursuit. (Note that Flask ultimately was renamed Trey® when the chair was later
`
`150
`
`released into the marketplace).
`
`
`
`7
`
`Sauder Exhibit 2046
`JSquared Inc. v Sauder Manufacturing Co.
`IPR2015-00774
`
`

`
`151
`
`152
`
`
`
`Figure 3 – Early Protocept
`
`
`
`153
`
`DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
`
`154
`
`Typical design and engineering criteria for chairs sold into contract markets (or “contract chairs”) include
`
`155
`
`but are not limited to: durability, safety, serviceability, comfort, aesthetics, and size (see Figure 3). Each
`
`156
`
`criterion would have been generally known to a PHOSITA of contract seating at the time of the
`
`157
`
`invention. However, with the Flask design concept, Sauder was electing to leave the well-worn path of
`
`158
`
`developing a conventional desk or task chair to undertake the challenge of designing a multi-functional
`
`159
`
`task chair and floor rocker and work surface/stool for use by young adults in college dorm rooms. Thus,
`
`160
`
`each of these typical criteria became less certain in its definition and more difficult to achieve. In a
`
`161
`
`similar fashion, the demanding conditions of the ED market – particularly dorm rooms – has its own set
`
`162
`
`of heightened needs for durability and the minimization of product theft or loss for which not every
`
`163
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art of contract chairs would know or have a full appreciation.
`
`164
`
`In general, all the requirements categorized below became more difficult because we were not only
`
`165
`
`designing a chair, but we were also developing a floor rocker AND a stool AND a work surface, all of
`
`166
`
`which were part of a chair assembly that needed to come apart and go back together without fail. In
`
`167
`
`essence, the very concept of this multi-functional chair served to, at a minimum, triple the
`
`168
`
`considerations and requirements normally applied to a desk chair.
`
`169
`
`I will now briefly address each of these criteria individually, and illuminate further how they all were
`
`170
`
`affected by the multi-functional task chair and floor rocker and work surface/stool design concept.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Sauder Exhibit 2046
`JSquared Inc. v Sauder Manufacturing Co.
`IPR2015-00774
`
`

`
`171
`
`172
`
`173
`
`PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
`
`174
`
`Durability
`
`Figure 4
`
`
`
`
`
`175
`
`Persons having ordinary skill in the art of contract furniture are familiar with BIFMA (the Business &
`
`176
`
`Institutional Furniture Manufacturers Association) and the industry-standard performance/safety test
`
`177
`
`requirements they publish. In the case of task seating, the applicable standard at the time of the ‘136
`
`178
`
`invention was ANSI/BIFMA X5.1-2002 (Exhibit 2050). The performance requirements addressed within
`
`179
`
`the standard include tests of stability (e.g., when a chair occupant tilts rearwards), strength and cyclical
`
`180
`
`longevity, and impact (reference specific test numbers)
`
`181
`
`But ANSI/BIFMA X5.1-2002 doesn’t address multi-functional chairs. How does one test the durability of
`
`182
`
`a floor rocker or a stool/work surface? How does one ensure that the means by which the individual
`
`183
`
`elements of the multi-functional chair design work equally well coupled and decoupled, and that the
`
`184
`
`releasable coupling and decoupling function works as intended each and every time? Indeed, what does
`
`185
`
`the term durability even mean when applied to these non-conventional furniture elements and
`
`186
`
`functions? There aren’t any BIFMA standards or off-the-shelf references for tests that can verify such a
`
`187
`
`design’s ability to endure its use, particularly when it will also be subjected to the uniquely abusive
`
`188
`
`environment of a college dorm. Therefore, Sauder had to invent additional tests and criteria to be used
`
`189
`
`in conjunction with BIFMA X5.1-2002. We created these additional physical performance requirements
`
`
`
`9
`
`Durability
`
`Safety
`
`Service-
`ability
`
`Aesthetics
`
`Synthesis
`&
`Innovation
`
`Comfort
`
`Intuitive /
`Easy to
`Use
`
`Size
`Constraint
`
`Theft/
`Loss
`
`Sauder Exhibit 2046
`JSquared Inc. v Sauder Manufacturing Co.
`IPR2015-00774
`
`

`
`190
`
`and tests based upon either unique attributes of the multi-functional chair design and/or identified
`
`191
`
`potentials for misuse in a college environment. These tests included Latch Strength, Durability, and
`
`192
`
`Impact tests, among others. (Exhibit 2051)
`
`193
`
`It’s worth noting that Sauder achieved the durability and reliability targets established for Trey® as
`
`194
`
`evidenced by the chair’s very low quality/warranty incident rate. Not only has this kept Sauder’s
`
`195
`
`warranty costs low, but it has given college and university housing professionals the confidence they
`
`196
`
`need to step beyond their comfort zone of specifying the same old wood-framed desk chairs that
`
`197
`
`they’ve been using for years.
`
`198
`
`Safety
`
`199
`
`Not only is a product not safe when it is insufficiently durable to stand up to the rigors of its intended
`
`200
`
`use, but if a product is used incorrectly, it can also be unsafe or dangerous. Therefore, a product design
`
`201
`
`should be foolproof. It should only allow for the product to be used just one way: the correct way.
`
`202
`
`Within the ‘136 design, the shining example of making a critical product function foolproof is the way by
`
`203
`
`which the saddle releasably couples with the chair’s receptacle. This will be further discussed and
`
`204
`
`described later in this declaration document.
`
`205
`
`In a small space such as dorm rooms, trip hazards need also be a consideration. It was recognized that
`
`206
`
`the floor rockers should not protrude beyond the rear edge of the seat’s back cushion.
`
`207
`
`Serviceability
`
`208
`
`One of the top selling points of the Sauder PlyLok chair which has been sold into the ED market for years
`
`209
`
`is durability. They just don’t break. There are no moving parts. So serviceability – the ability to take the
`
`210
`
`product apart and fix or replace broken or worn out components -- has never been of particular
`
`211
`
`concern.
`
`212
`
`However, with the Flask design concept, there were suddenly elements that needed to move relative to
`
`213
`
`each other. The Flask concept required that components be designed to come apart and go back
`
`214
`
`together again in some fashion (releasable coupling). Would we need to design in order to allow for the
`
`215
`
`parts involved in this coupling functionality to be readily disassembled, or could these parts be made
`
`216
`
`durable enough to never need repair or replacement? Such were some of the considerations generated
`
`217
`
`by the concept for a multi-functional chair design.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Sauder Exhibit 2046
`JSquared Inc. v Sauder Manufacturing Co.
`IPR2015-00774
`
`

`
`218
`
`Comfort
`
`219
`
`To the non-PHOSITA, the first thought that comes to mind when asked about the comfort of a chair is
`
`220
`
`the softness of the seat. However, a PHOSITA of contract seating knows that comfort is a result of the
`
`221
`
`appropriate design and synthesis of many other variables including shape, size (height, width, depth),
`
`222
`
`pitch (or angle) and orientation of and relationship between seat and back elements and the floor.
`
`223
`
`Ergonomics, posture, and support are all vital considerations when seeking to achieve comfort in a chair.
`
`224
`
`Comfort in a desk chair, however, is different than comfort in a floor rocker. The principles of good
`
`225
`
`seating design have long been established for desk chairs. However, such principles for designing a
`
`226
`
`comfortable floor rocker do not exist. Furthermore, it was unknown to us at the time of developing
`
`227
`
`Flask whether a seat and back designed appropriately for a task chair could also perform well when used
`
`228
`
`as a floor rocker. The same seat and back combination that needs to provide an upright, supportive
`
`229
`
`posture during use as a task chair, must at the same time be inviting and comfortable in its more relaxed
`
`230
`
`use as a floor rocker. Could both be simultaneously achieved? Could a balance be struck? Would
`
`231
`
`compromise be required? If so, would it make both equally good – or equally bad? It was clear that,
`
`232
`
`investigation and trial and error were required.
`
`233
`
`Rocker design also had a significant impact on the comfort to be derived from the floor rocker position.
`
`234
`
`This is described further in the section below labeled “Rockers”.
`
`235
`
`Aesthetics
`
`236
`
`As with other design criteria noted here, the number of aesthetic considerations was multiplied at least
`
`237
`
`threefold by the multi-functional nature of the Flask concept. Not only did the Flask concept require
`
`238
`
`that the task chair be aesthetically pleasing, but when decoupled, both the floor rocker and the
`
`239
`
`stool/work surface need also be attractively designed. Flask’s design needed to be contemporary yet
`
`240
`
`complementary to existing (and often traditional looking) dorm room furniture; appealing to both
`
`241
`
`housing professionals and students. The design also needed to indicate that the chair is different from
`
`242
`
`others and does more than a regular task chair, but not look “too far out there”. It needed to be
`
`243
`
`distinctive yet inviting and non-threatening.
`
`244
`
`Theft/Loss
`
`245
`
`Theft or loss is always a consideration on college campuses. And the professionals who manage student
`
`246
`
`housing facilities are particularly attuned to the cost and disruption caused by the loss of school
`
`247
`
`property, including chairs. When a chair is envisioned to come apart into more than one piece (such as
`
`
`
`11
`
`Sauder Exhibit 2046
`JSquared Inc. v Sauder Manufacturing Co.
`IPR2015-00774
`
`

`
`248
`
`the Flask concept was), the obvious concern is that now there are at least twice as many opportunities
`
`249
`
`for something to be lost or get stolen. In fact, that very concern was shared with us by housing
`
`250
`
`professionals who participated in a focus group hosted by Sauder, and performed by Great Lakes
`
`251
`
`Marketing on our behalf, in Ann Arbor, MI in the fall of 2005. How could we design the chair to both
`
`252
`
`mitigate their concerns and reduce the likelihood of something like this happening? We decided that
`
`253
`
`we could not allow our design to utilize or create any loose parts, particularly if they are non-functional
`
`254
`
`after removal.
`
`255
`
`Size
`
`256
`
`As I’ve previously stated, the target user for the Flask chair was always a college-aged student, generally
`
`257
`
`18-22 years of age, and the target application for its use was the college dorm room. Two things we
`
`258
`
`know: dorm rooms are always space-constrained (there’s never enough room), and Americans in
`
`259
`
`general are getting larger.
`
`260
`
`In the case of the former (room size), effective use of a dorm room’s limited space was of course a
`
`261
`
`foundational premise of the multi-functional chair concept in the first place, i.e., how can a student get
`
`262
`
`more out of the furniture that’s already in their room? This meant that the Flask chair in its task chair
`
`263
`
`configuration could not consume a larger footprint than would a typical task chair.
`
`264
`
`In the case of the latter (size of the individual), we wanted to make the seat itself as wide as possible to
`
`265
`
`comfortably support larger individuals. The primary constraint on the maximum width of the seat,
`
`266
`
`beyond the desire for the conservation of room space in general, was the width of the knee-space under
`
`267
`
`a student desk. (The knee-space is the common term for the opening under the desk surface where a
`
`268
`
`chair occupant’s legs would be when their chair is pulled up close to the desk in a traditional sitting
`
`269
`
`position). Through Sauder’s decades-long experience in the ED housing market, we were aware that
`
`270
`
`colleges required the desk chair be stowable within the knee-space and desired that hard-surfaces not
`
`271
`
`come in contact with the knee-space so as to minimize damage to the desk (i.e., the soft nose and sides
`
`272
`
`of the seat cushion were the desired contact surfaces with the desk). With these parameters in place,
`
`273
`
`the Flask seat’s width was limited to less than 20” wide, which is not an overly generous seat width for
`
`274
`
`large individuals. And it was clear that all other elements of the multi-functional chair design – including
`
`275
`
`the floor rockers – would need to be contained within width and the front nose of the seat cushion.
`
`276
`
`Other design considerations related to size which were driven by our multi-functional design concept
`
`277
`
`included identifying the appropriate height of the floor rocker’s seat from the floor and the proper
`
`
`
`12
`
`Sauder Exhibit 2046
`JSquared Inc. v Sauder Manufacturing Co.
`IPR2015-00774
`
`

`
`278
`
`height of the work surface relative to the floor rocker’s seat height. These two elements of product size
`
`279
`
`needed to work in concert with one another.
`
`280
`
`Ease of Use and Intuitiveness of Design
`
`281
`
`Finally, in addition to all the above-described criteria, we added intuitiveness of design and ease of use.
`
`282
`
`After all, what good is it to create innovative functionality if your customers don’t know it’s there, or
`
`283
`
`can’t tell how to access it? There’s not much that’s more intuitive to use than a good ‘ole common desk
`
`284
`
`chair. But a multi-functional task chair that decouples into a floor rocker and a stool/work surface?
`
`285
`
`Now that’s a different story. We couldn’t have the multi-functional chair be difficult to use or
`
`286
`
`understand. We wanted to achieve high customer satisfaction. But also, ease of use and intuitiveness
`
`287
`
`are both closely aligned with the critical need for safety. If a product isn’t easy to use, the chance of it
`
`288
`
`being used incorrectly is higher, and accidents are more likely to happen.
`
`289
`
`SYNTHESIS & INNOVATION
`
`290
`
`For the Flask chair concept to be successful, all of these requirements needed to be accomplished within
`
`291
`
`a single cohesive design. The degree of difficulty of making these sometimes divergent product
`
`292
`
`expectations peacefully coexist in a harmonious and effective design is what required extreme creativity
`
`293
`
`and focused effort.
`
`294
`
`The ‘136 patent’s design contains numerous features and functions that required thorough systems
`
`295
`
`integration and coordination, creativity, sound engineering methods, and determination to work
`
`296
`
`through multiple design evolutions and arrive at solutions to the problems presented by the product
`
`297
`
`requirements and the realities of making them all work in harmony. This is what makes Sauder’s Flask
`
`298
`
`(Trey®) multi-functional chair a truly unique design and novel invention.
`
`299
`
`Although we originally experimented with new concepts for performing height adjustment and
`
`300
`
`tilt/swivel functionality for the task chair in hopes of reducing cost and/or making multi-functionality
`
`301
`
`more easily obtainable, we soon came to realize that there was little to be gained from reinventing
`
`302
`
`elements of a common task chair design; elements that were known to persons having ordinary skill in
`
`303
`
`the art of contract seating at the time. In fact, we ultimately chose to use off-the shelf components for
`
`304
`
`the common components and functions of a task chair – casters, pedestal/cylinder (height adjustment),
`
`305
`
`and tilt/swivel mechanism (“connector”). Even the ‘136’s 5-star base, which was tooled as a custom
`
`306
`
`part, follows the conventional engineering structure and materials known commonly in the art. (The
`
`
`
`13
`
`Sauder Exhibit 2046
`JSquared Inc. v Sauder Manufacturing Co.
`IPR2015-00774
`
`

`
`307
`
`base was custom designed for the purpose of continuity of aesthetic expression across the entire chair’s
`
`308
`
`design as patented in D585,204, not for added strength or durability, per se).
`
`309
`
`The Crux of the Matter
`
`310
`
`Our engineering efforts therefore became focused upon areas of true novelty and inventiveness. In
`
`311
`
`order to bring life to the multi-functional chair concept known as Flask – a task chair, a floor rocker, and
`
`312
`
`a stool/work surface -- innovation and invention would be required in the design and development of
`
`313
`
`rockers, releasable coupling methods, ease of use, safety, and error-proofing (see Figure 4).
`
`314
`
`315
`
`Rockers
`
`Figure 4
`
`
`
`316
`
`When first considered by PHOSITAs and non-PHOSITAs alike, rockers might seem to be a simple design
`
`317
`
`element to create. After all, we’ve all seen grandma’s rocking chair on the front porch. However, when
`
`318
`
`applied to the multi-functional Flask chair concept, the design of rockers takes on both additional
`
`319
`
`purpose and greater complexity. The design of the Flask chair’s rockers was not simply a matter of
`
`320
`
`shape, but also of height, size, and location. The design of the rockers didn’t just dictate the rocking
`
`321
`
`motion of the chair, but also played a significant role in comfort, safety, product durability, and the
`
`322
`
`releasable coupling of the chair to the stool.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Latch
`
`Latch
`Protect
`
`Rockers
`
`Structure
`
`One
`
`Lower
`Portion
`
`RECEPTACLE
`
`RELEASABLY COUPLED
`
`E r r o r
`o f e
`P r o
`
`d
`
`SADDLE
`
`Sauder Exhibit 2046
`JSquared Inc. v Sauder Manufacturing Co.
`IPR2015-00774
`
`

`
`323
`
`Even the shape of rockers was not intuitive. The Flask chair’s rockers could not be simply designed as a
`
`324
`
`basic arc of continuous radius and/or static center point akin to a conventional rocking chair
`
`325
`
`(“grandma’s”). The design of the Flask chair’s rockers required