`_________________
`
`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