throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`ALLSTEEL INC.
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`DIRTT ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filing Date: August, 17, 2005
`Issue Date: September 27, 2011
`Title: INTEGRATED RECONFIGURABLE WALL SYSTEM
`__________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`__________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`
`CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES AND REQUIREMENTS .................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties In Interest ................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters .............................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4): Counsel and Service Information ............. 1
`
`II.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`
`INTER PARTIES REVIEW ............................................................................ 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Payment of Fees Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................. 2
`
`Grounds for Standing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ..................... 2
`
`III. THE ‘901 PATENT ......................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Alleged Invention of the ‘901 Patent ............................................. 3
`
`Prosecution of the ‘901 Patent .............................................................. 5
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b) AND STATEMENT OF THE RELIEF REQUESTED .............. 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2): Claims for Which Review is
`Requested and Grounds on Which the Challenge is Based .................. 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): How the Challenged Claims Are to
`be Construed and the Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................... 8
`
`1.
`
`How the Challenged Claims Are to be Construed ...................... 8
`i
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5): Challenge and Support ......................... 9
`
`V.
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................... 10
`
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY ................................... 10
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-5, 11 and 13 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over CA 2,002,674 (“Price”) (Ex. 1002). ............................. 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of Price ..................................................................... 11
`
`The Challenged Claims are Obvious Over Price. ..................... 17
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 6, 7, and 18 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over Price and EVH. ................................................................ 26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of EVH. .................................................................... 26
`
`Combination of Price and EVH. ............................................... 29
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 8 and 9 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Price and Yu. ............................................................................... 31
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of Yu. ........................................................................ 31
`
`Combination of Price and Yu. .................................................. 34
`
`D. Ground 4: Claims 10 and 19-23 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`103(a) over Price and MacGregor. ...................................................... 35
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of MacGregor. .......................................................... 35
`
`Combination of Price and MacGregor. ..................................... 38
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5: Claims 16 and 17 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`103(a) over Price and Raith. ................................................................ 39
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of Raith. .................................................................... 39
`
`Combination of Price and Raith. ............................................... 42
`
`F.
`
`Ground 6: Claim 12 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over
`Price and Rozier. ................................................................................. 44
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of Rozier. .................................................................. 44
`
`Combination of Price and Rozier. ............................................. 45
`
`G. Ground 7: Claim 25 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over
`Price, MacGregor, and Rozier. ............................................................ 46
`
`1.
`
`Combination of Price, MacGregor, and Rozier. ....................... 46
`
`H. Ground 8: Claim 14 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over
`Price and Dixon. .................................................................................. 48
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of Dixon.................................................................... 49
`
`Combination of Price and Dixon .............................................. 50
`
`I.
`
`Ground 9: Claim 15 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over
`Price, EVH and KI Brochure. .............................................................. 51
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of the KI Brochure ................................................... 51
`
`Combination of Price, EVH and the KI Brochure .................... 54
`
`J.
`
`Ground 10: Claim 24 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over
`Price and De Lange. ............................................................................ 56
`iii
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`
`1.
`
`Overview of De Lange. ............................................................. 56
`
`2.
`
`Combination of Price and De Lange. ........................................ 57
`
`VII. THE GROUNDS ARE NOT REDUNDANT ............................................... 58
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 58
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc.,
` 445 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 27
`
`Ex Parte Nancy Lee Carter,
`APL 2008-5682, 2009 WL 524959 (Feb. 27, 2009) ..................................... 18-19
`
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter International, Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................... 4
`
`Geo. M. Martin Co. v. Alliance Mach. Sys. Int'l LLC,
`618 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................... 18-19
`
`In re Chu,
`66 F.3d 292 (Fed.Cir. 1995) .................................................................................. 4
`
`In re Gazda,
`219 F.2d 449 (CCPA 1955) ................................................................................. 18
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 11
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
`522 F. 3d 1299 (Fed.Cir. 2008) ............................................................................. 4
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................................................................................... 36
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................... 36
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ........................................................................................... passim
`v
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................................... 4, 8
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ................................................................................................. 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 10
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.11 (2002) ............................................................................................ 27
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4) .......................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. .......................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................. 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2) ...................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5) .............................................................................. 10, 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 168 ........................................................................................................ 10
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Google Inc. v. Visual Real Estate, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01338, Paper 3 (PTAB Sept. 2, 2014) ................................................. 23
`
`Amneal Pharms., LLC v. Supernus Pharms., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00368, Paper 6 (PTAB Dec. 17, 2013) ................................................ 60
`
`MPEP § 103(III) (2001) ........................................................................................... 27
`
`MPEP § 211.05 ........................................................................................................... 4
`
`MPEP § 803.2 ............................................................................................................ 4
`
`MPEP § 2144 ........................................................................................................... 18
`
`MPEP § 2144.04.VI.A ............................................................................................. 18
`
`MPEP § 2173.05(h) .................................................................................................... 4
`
`MPEP § 2181(I)(A). .................................................................................................. 8
`
`MPEP §§ 2128.01-02 ............................................................................................... 53
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS1
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1001:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901 (the “‘901 patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1002:
`
`Canadian Patent No. 2 002 674 (“Price”)
`
`Exhibit 1003:
`
`U.S. Patent 4,438,614 (“Raith”)
`
`Exhibit 1004:
`
`Publicly Available Information from the application file
`
`contents for U.S. Patent Application 10/027,872,
`
`published as US 2002/0121056 and made publicly
`
`available on September 5, 2002 (“EVH”)2
`
`Exhibit 1005:
`
`U.S. Patent 6,161,347 (“Yu”)
`
`Exhibit 1006:
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0154673
`
`
`1 Line number citations for the various U.S. Patent references are presented
`
`as indicated by the publisher’s reference numbering provided between columns.
`
`2 Citations for EVH are made with reference to the Exhibit page numbering
`
`and a parenthetical to specific line numbers or figures. The contents of EVH
`
`referenced in the Petition are included in Exhibit 1004, although a full copy of the
`
`contents of the image file wrapper for U.S. Application 10/027,872 is included as
`
`Exhibit 1013.
`
`viii
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`
`(“MacGregor”)
`
`Exhibit 1007:
`
`U.S. Patent 5,881,979 (“Rozier”)
`
`Exhibit 1008:
`
`U.S. Patent 4,277,920 (“Dixon”)
`
`Exhibit 1009:
`
`Exhibit Krueger International Genius Full-Height
`
`Moveable Wall Brochure, 2003 (“KI brochure”)
`
`Exhibit 1010:
`
`U.S. Patent 3,621,635 (“De Lange”)
`
`Exhibit 1011:
`
`U.S. Patent 4,493,172 (“Jones”)
`
`Exhibit 1012:
`
`File Wrapper for U.S. Patent 8,024,901
`
`Exhibit 1013:
`
`File Wrapper (Full) for U.S. patent application
`
`10/027,872
`
`Exhibit 1014:
`
`Provisional application 60/601,985
`
`Exhibit 1015:
`
`File Wrapper for U.S. patent application 14/032,931
`
`(“‘931 reissue application”) as of July 30, 2015
`
`Exhibit 1016:
`
`Excerpt of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure,
`
`Eighth Edition (2001)
`
`Exhibit 1017:
`
`Excerpt of Section 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations
`
`(2002)
`
`Exhibit 1018:
`
`Expert Declaration of Joseph J. Beaman, Jr., Ph.D.
`
`ix
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`
`Exhibit 1019:
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Joseph J. Beaman, Jr., Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit 1020:
`
`Declaration of Eberhard Von Hoyningen Huene
`
`Exhibit 1021:
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0121056
`
`Exhibit 1022: Webster’s New World College Dictionary (4th ed. 2001)
`
`Exhibit 1023: McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical
`
`Terms (6th ed. 2003)
`
`Exhibit 1024:
`
`The New Oxford American Dictionary (2001)
`
`Exhibit 1025:
`
`File Wrapper for U.S. Application Ser. No. 12/963,948
`
`x
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq., Allsteel
`
`Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter partes review of claims 1-25 of U.S.
`
`Patent 8,024,901 (the “’901 patent”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1001.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES AND REQUIREMENTS
`
`A.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties In Interest
`
`HNI Corporation and Allsteel Inc. are the real parties-in-interest for this
`
`petition (“Petition”).
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters
`
`The ‘901 patent is the subject of a patent infringement lawsuit originally
`
`brought by DIRTT Environmental Solutions Ltd. (“DIRTT”) against Allsteel Inc.
`
`in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Case No. 2:15-cv-
`
`00123-PMW. The parties agreed to dismiss all claims in the District of Utah and
`
`now the infringement action is proceeding in the United States District Court for
`
`the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:15-cv-04874.
`
`Since issuance, the ‘901 patent has been the subject of three currently-
`
`pending reissue applications, none of which has received a notice of allowance: (1)
`
`14/032,931 filed on September 20, 2013; (2) 14/305,819 filed on June 16, 2014;
`
`and (3) 14/681,874 filed on April 8, 2015.
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4): Counsel and Service Information
`
`Petitioner designates the following counsel at the addresses shown below
`
`1
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`and consents to electronic service at the email addresses below.
`
`Lead Counsel
`Victor P. Jonas
`Faegre Baker Daniels
`2200 Wells Fargo Center
`90 S. Seventh St.
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Phone: 612-766-7611
`Fax: 612-766-1600
`Victor.Jonas@
`FaegreBD.com
`Reg. No. 58,590
`
`II. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTIES REVIEW
`
`Add’l Back-Up Counsel
`Nicholas M. Anderson
`Faegre Baker Daniels
`2200 Wells Fargo Center
`90 S. Seventh St.
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Phone: 612-766-7611
`Fax: 612-766-1600
`Nick.Anderson@
`FaegreBD.com
`Reg. No. 67,582
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Trevor Carter
`Faegre Baker Daniels
`300 N. Meridian Street,
`Suite 2700
`Indianapolis, IN 46204
`Phone: 317-237-1352
`Fax: 317-237-8462
`Trevor.Carter@
`FaegreBD.com
`Reg. No. 40,549
`
`A.
`
`Payment of Fees Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Commissioner to charge the $9,000 request
`
`fee, $14,000 post-institution fee, $1,000 excess claim fee, $4,000 post-institution
`
`excess claims fee (total of $28,000), and any additional fees to our Deposit
`
`Account No. 06-0029 for the fee required for this Petition as set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a) along with any additional fees that may be required.
`
`B. Grounds for Standing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the ’901 patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes
`
`review challenging the ‘901 patent claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`III. THE ‘901 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`The Alleged Invention of the ‘901 Patent
`
`The ‘901 patent is entitled “Integrated Reconfigurable Wall system,” and
`
`names Geoff Gosling and Mogens Smed as inventors. Ex. 1001. The ‘901 patent
`
`issued on September 27, 2011 from U.S. Application 11/205,314, filed on Aug 17,
`
`2005, and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application 60/601,985, entitled
`
`“Integrated Reconfigurable Wall System,” filed Aug. 17, 2004. Id. Dirtt
`
`Environmental Solutions Ltd. (“DIRTT”) is listed as assignee of the ‘901 patent.
`
`The ‘901 patent relates to a “movable reconfigurable wall system.” See, e.g.,
`
`id. at Abstract. The system includes a wall module having “vertical end frames,” “a
`
`plurality of horizontal stringers affixed between the vertical end frames,” “an
`
`aesthetic surface affixed to the stringers,” and “a removable connecting strip …
`
`adapted to affix” one of the vertical end frames to “a second module, a wall
`
`bracket, a finishing trim or a connection post.” Id.
`
`The following, annotated excerpt from figure 30 of ‘901 patent indicates
`
`where key components from claim 1 are found in the disclosed embodiments:
`
`3
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`
`The annotated excerpt above shows beaded portions associated with two
`
`adjacent vertical end frames of two adjacent wall modules. Claim 1 is drafted in
`
`the alternative form with respect to “a corresponding opposed vertically extending
`
`flange on a separate vertical end frame of a second wall module, a wall bracket, a
`
`finishing trim or a connection post.” In challenging claim 1, Petitioner has
`
`generally described where the prior art discloses one of the alternatives—adjacent
`
`wall module connections. See MPEP, §§ 803.2 and 2173.05(h). In the case of
`
`claimed alternatives, the entire element is disclosed by the prior art if one
`
`alternative is in the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582
`
`F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`Moreover, provisional application 60/601,985 (the “’985 Application”) to
`
`which the ‘901 patent claims priority does not reference, does not show, and does
`
`not otherwise disclose “the beaded portion of … a wall bracket … or a connection
`
`post,” for example, as recited in claim 1. See generally Ex. 1014; Ex. 1018, ¶ 17.
`
`As the limitations of claim 1 are not fully supported under 35 U.S.C. § 112, claim
`
`1 and claims 2-25 depending therefrom should not be afforded the effective filing
`
`date of the ‘985 Application. See MPEP § 211.05; PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-MOBILE
`
`USA, INC., 522 F. 3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008); In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1995).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution of the ‘901 Patent
`
`During prosecution, DIRTT repeatedly amended claim 1 with limitations
`
`directed to the “vertical end frame” and “removable connecting strip” components,
`
`ultimately adding “beaded portions” to those features prior to allowance. The
`
`substantive rejections during prosecution were based primarily on the combined
`
`teachings of U.S. Patent 6,260,321 (“Rudduck”) in view of U.S. Publication
`
`2003/0089057 (“Wiechecki”). DIRTT initially characterized Rudduck’s panel
`
`connectors as “completely unlike the mechanism that the applicant uses to connect
`
`adjacent wall modules together.” Ex. 1012 at 103-104; see generally id. at 97-125.
`
`DIRTT argued that, in contrast, the connection mechanism of the ‘901 patent
`
`“consists of ‘zippers’ 25 that snap fit onto opposed flanges.” Id. at 104.
`
`Following additional rounds of prosecution through which the Rudduck-
`
`Wiechecki rejections were maintained, DIRTT further amended claim 1 to include
`
`limitations related to “beaded” portions on the connectors and end frames, arguing
`
`Rudduck lacked such features. Id. at 51. The claims were subsequently allowed in
`
`a Notice of Allowance dated July 6, 2011. The ‘901 patent issued on September 7,
`
`2011.
`
`Since issuance, the ‘901 patent has been the subject of three currently-
`
`pending reissue applications, none of which have been allowed or issued: (1)
`
`14/032,931 filed on September 20, 2013 (‘931 reissue application) (Ex. 1015); (2)
`
`5
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`14/305,819 filed on June 16, 2014; and (3) 14/681,874 filed on April 8, 2015.
`
`DIRTT submitted the ‘931 reissue application as a broadening reissue. Ex.
`
`1015 at 88,275. The ‘931 reissue application includes amendments to claim 1 of
`
`the ‘901 patent. That amended claim 1 currently stands rejected based upon
`
`different art than presented in this Petition, including U.S. Patent 4,493,172
`
`(“Jones”) (Ex. 1011), which is relied upon in the rejection for beaded connectors
`
`and flanges. Ex. 1015 at 391-405.
`
`Excerpt from Rudduck
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Excerpt from ‘901 Patent
`
`
`Excerpt from Jones
`
`
`Price’s “jointer member” (not cited to Examiner in ‘901 patent or ‘931 reissue)
`
`
`
`
`Although Petitioner agrees with the Office Action’s conclusions that various
`
`claims of the ‘931 reissue are obvious, the references provided in the Petition even
`
`better disclose the claims of the ‘901 patent. For example, DIRTT’s primary
`
`arguments for patentability were that Rudduck lacked beaded connectors for
`6
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`connecting vertically extending flanges on separate end frames. Ex. 1012 at 51.
`
`Price, which forms the basis for all grounds addressed in this Petition, clearly
`
`discloses beaded, snap on connectors for connecting flanges on separate end
`
`frames. E.g., Ex. 1002 at 15:10-15.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b) AND STATEMENT OF THE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`A.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2): Claims for Which Review is
`Requested and Grounds on Which the Challenge is Based
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests cancellation of claims 1-25 of the ‘901 patent
`
`as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the prior art references set forth below in
`
`combination with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the alleged invention of the ’901 patent:
`
`Ground
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claims
`
`1-5, 11,
`13
`6, 7, 18
`
`References
`
`CA 2,002,674 (“Price”) (Ex. 1002)
`
`Price (Ex. 1002) and Publicly available file contents for U.S.
`
`Application 10/027,872 (“EVH”) (Ex. 1004)
`
`8, 9
`
`Price (Ex. 1002) and U.S. Pat. 6,161,347 (“Yu”) (Ex. 1005)
`
`10, 19-23 Price (Ex. 1002) and U.S. Application Publication
`
`2003/0154673 (“MacGregor”) (Ex. 1006)
`
`5.
`
`16, 17
`
`Price (Ex. 1002) and U.S. Pat. 4,438,614 (“Raith”) (Ex.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`
`1003)
`
`6.
`
`12
`
`Price (Ex. 1002) and U.S. Patent 5,881,979 (“Rozier”) (Ex.
`
`1007)
`
`7.
`
`25
`
`Price (Ex. 1002), MacGregor (Ex. 1006), and Rozier (Ex.
`
`1007)
`
`8.
`
`14
`
`Price (Ex. 1002) and U.S. Patent 4,277,920 (“Dixon”) (Ex.
`
`1008)
`
`9.
`
`15
`
`Price (Ex. 1002), EVH (Ex. 1004) and Genius Full-Height
`
`Moveable Wall Brochure, 2003 (“KI brochure”) (Ex. 1009)
`
`10.
`
`24
`
`Price (Ex. 1002) and U.S. Patent 3,621,635 (“De Lange”)
`
`(Ex. 1010)
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): How the Challenged Claims Are to be
`Construed and the Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`1.
`
`How the Challenged Claims Are to be Construed
`
`The claims in this inter partes review are given the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). None of the
`
`claim terms is believed to fall within pre-AIA Section 112, paragraph six (“means-
`
`plus-function”). MPEP § 2181(I)(A). Petitioner offers the following term and
`
`proposed “broadest reasonable” construction without waiver of arguments that the
`
`claims are invalid as indefinite. Petitioner reserves the right to argue or respond to
`
`8
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`different claim constructions in other proceedings.
`
` “Horizontal Stringer.” The ‘901 patent discloses stringers “spaced apart at
`
`intervals along the height of the module for strength and rigidity.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`4:54-55. The ‘901 patent also indicates stringers are used “anywhere structure is
`
`required.” Id. at 4:58-60. In view of the foregoing, the broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification as read by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art is “a horizontal member.” Ex. 1018, ¶ 75; see also Ex. 1022 (“[A] horizontal
`
`timber connecting upright posts in a frame”); Ex. 1023 (“A long horizontal
`
`member used to support a floor or to connect uprights in a frame.”); Ex. 1024 (“[A]
`
`longitudinal structural piece in a framework, esp. that of a ship or aircraft.”).
`
`2.
`
`The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art as of August 2004 would have had a
`
`Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering or have been a mechanical
`
`designer with 3 to 5 years of experience. Ex. 1018, ¶ 35.
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5): Challenge and Support
`
`A detailed explanation of how construed claims 1-25 are unpatentable is
`
`provided in Sections V and VI below. A List of Exhibits supporting this Petition is
`
`included after the table of authorities, including the Declaration of Dr. Joseph J.
`
`Beaman, Jr., Ph.D. in support of this Petition in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 168
`
`(Ex. 1018).
`
`9
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`V.
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A petition for inter partes review must demonstrate “a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). This Petition meets this threshold.
`
`All elements of the challenged claims of the ‘901 patent are taught in the prior art
`
`references as explained below pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4), and reasons to
`
`combine the features of these prior art references are established for each ground
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found
`
`all of the challenged claims to be a “predictable use of prior art elements according
`
`to their established functions.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
`
`(2007). Petitioner, therefore, respectfully submits that claims 1-25 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the challenged claims are unpatentable in
`
`view of the grounds discussed below and as supported by the Declaration of Joseph
`
`J. Beaman, Jr., Ph.D. (Ex. 1018).
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-5, 11 and 13 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over CA 2,002,674 (“Price”) (Ex. 1002).
`
`Price was not considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the ‘901
`
`patent.
`
`10
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Price
`
`Price is a Canadian patent that published on March 2, 1993 and is prior art to
`
`the ‘901 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Ex. 1002. Price is pertinent art because it
`
`relates to partition walls formed with a plurality of panel units that are configured
`
`to be de-mounted and relocated as cohesive, unitary assemblies. E.g., id. at
`
`Abstract, Field of Invention. Price addresses problems such as the “ease or
`
`simplicity with which a removable partition wall may be erected.” Id. at 2:11-3:17.
`
`Price would be considered to be in the same field of endeavor as the ‘901 patent
`
`(e.g., “movable and reconfigurable wall systems,” Ex. 1001 at Field of Invention)
`
`and pertinent to the problems sought to be addressed by the ‘901 patent (e.g.,
`
`“reconfigure or … move without significant amounts of labour and dislocation,”
`
`Ex. 1001 at Background). Ex. 1018, ¶ 43.
`
`Price discloses or renders obvious the principal features of the challenged
`
`claims: individual wall units including a rectangular frame with vertical and
`
`horizontal members, wall panels secured to the horizontal members of the frame,
`
`and beaded connectors that secure adjacent wall units together. E.g., Ex. 1002 at
`
`Summary, 15:10-15; claim 5; Figs. 1-4.
`
`As a starting point, the side members 5 of Price provide the vertical end
`
`frames of claim 1 of the ‘901 patent. The frame side members 5 are formed with
`
`“bayonet members 61,” which provide “vertically extending flanges” according to
`11
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`claim 1. E.g., id. at 15:10-15; Figs. 1, 3, 4, 8. The bayonet members 61 each
`
`include what a person of ordinary skill would consider to be “beaded portions”
`
`according to claim 1 of the ‘901 patent, where the “beaded portions” of the bayonet
`
`members 61 are indicated below on the annotated excerpts from Figs. 4 and 8 of
`
`Price. Ex. 1018, ¶ 44, 45. As recited in claim 1, each side member 5 of Price
`
`includes two bayonet members 61, one with a beaded portion that extends toward
`
`the front of the wall unit and one with a beaded portion that extends toward the
`
`rear of the wall unit. E.g., Ex. 1002 at 15:10-15; Figs. 3, 4, 8.
`
`
`
`
`
`The panel units 1 of Price each include horizontal top members 3, bottom
`
`members 4, and suspension channels 6, all of which extend between and are
`
`connected to the side members 5 at vertically spaced locations. E.g., id. at 7:2-7;
`
`11:2-12; claim 5; Figs. 1, 4. Thus, Price also teaches “horizontal stringers affixed
`
`between vertical end frames” according to claim 1 of the ‘901 patent in the form of
`
`top members 3, bottom members 4, and suspension channels 6. Ex. 1018, ¶ 46.
`
`12
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Price discloses that gypsum board pane

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket