`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: April 22, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ALLSTEEL INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`DIRTT ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION ON REMAND
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner, Allsteel Inc., filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
`review of claims 1, 4–11, 13–23, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’901 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, DIRTT
`Environmental Solutions Ltd., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 9
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary
`Response, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1, 4–7, 9, 10, 14–
`20, and 25, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314. Paper 10 (“Institution Decision”).
`We did not institute an inter partes review with respect to claims 8, 11, 13,
`and 21–23. Id. Subsequent to institution, Petitioner filed a Request for
`Rehearing with respect to claim 8. Paper 16 (“Req. Reh’g”). We denied
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing. Paper 23 (“Decision Req. Reh’g”).
`Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 24 (“PO Resp.”))
`and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 30 (“Pet. Reply”)). The parties also filed
`motions to exclude certain evidence. Papers 34 and 36. An oral hearing was
`held. Paper 43 (“Tr. 1”). Per a Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 318(a), we determined that Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 1, 4–7, 9, 10, 14–20, and 25 are unpatentable. Paper 44
`(“Final Written Decision”). Patent Owner filed a notice of appeal with the
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). While the
`appeal was pending, on April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held that a
`decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on fewer than
`all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348,
`1354 (2018). Accordingly, the Federal Circuit vacated our Final Written
`Decision in this proceeding and remanded “to allow the Board to issue a
`final written decision consistent with SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`1348 (2018).” DIRTT Envtl. Sols. Ltd. v. Allsteel Inc., 731 F. App’x 980,
`981 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Exs. 3001, 3002.
`In light of the Federal Circuit’s vacatur and remand, we modified our
`Institution Decision to institute on all of the challenged claims and all of the
`grounds presented in the Petition. Paper 46. In particular, we instituted on
`Petitioner’s assertion that claim 8 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`as obvious over Raith and Yu; claims 11 and 13 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Raith and EVH; and claims 21–23 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Raith and
`MacGregor. Id.
`Petitioner requested limited briefing and a limited Dr. Beaman
`declaration regarding claims 8, 11, 13, and 21–23 pursuant to the Office
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, August 2018 Update, 83 Fed. Reg. 39989 (Aug.
`2018) (providing link to Trial Practice Guide Update:
`https://go.usa.gov/xU7GP (“Trial Practice Guide Update”)). Paper 47
`(“Order”). We granted Petitioner’s request and authorized both parties to
`file supplemental briefs regarding newly instituted claims 8, 11, 13, and
`21–23. Id. We explained that Petitioner may submit a declaration to present
`“rebuttal evidence” to the findings and determinations we made in the
`Institution Decision regarding claims 8, 11, 13, and 21–23. Id. at 2–3. We
`further explained that in view of the Trial Practice Guide Update, “Petitioner
`may not submit new evidence, issues, or argument that it could have
`presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Id.
`at 3. And we explained:
`[I]t would not be appropriate for Petitioner to fill in the gaps of
`the Petition by showing, for the very first time, how the prior
`art of record describes a claim element that was not accounted
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`
`for previously. Rather, Petitioner’s supplemental brief is
`limited to identifying matters that Petitioner believes we
`misapprehended or overlooked in the Petition, or how we
`otherwise erred in the Institution Decision for claims 8, 11, 13,
`and 21–23.
`
`
`
`Id.
`
`In response to our Order, Petitioner filed a supplemental brief and
`supplemental declaration from Dr. Beaman addressing newly instituted
`claims 8, 11, 13, and 21–23. Paper 48 (Pet. Supp. Br.); Ex. 1038. Patent
`Owner filed a response to Petitioner’s supplemental brief. Paper 52.
`Petitioner filed a reply to Patent Owner’s responsive brief. Paper 53. An
`oral hearing was held regarding newly instituted claims 8, 11, 13, and 21–
`23. Paper 60 (“Tr. 2”).
`In lieu of reproducing our previous Final Written Decision here, we
`adopt and incorporate by reference, in its entirety, our previous Final Written
`Decision that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
`claims 1, 4–7, 9, 10, 14–20, and 25 of the ’901 patent are unpatentable.
`Final Written Decision. In this Decision, we augment our earlier decision to
`address a few points raised previously by Patent Owner before the Federal
`Circuit. In addition, we address newly instituted claims 8, 11, 13, and 21–
`23. For the reasons provided below, we reiterate that Petitioner has shown
`by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 4–7, 9, 10, 14–20, and 25
`are unpatentable. The Petitioner, however, has not shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 8, 11, 13, and 21–23 are
`unpatentable.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Obviousness of Claim 1 over Raith and EVH, Raith and Yu, and Raith
`and MacGregor
`As explained above, we adopt and incorporate by reference, in its
`entirety, our previous Final Written Decision that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 4–7, 9, 10, 14–20, and 25 of the
`’901 patent are unpatentable. Final Written Decision. We augment that
`decision to address a few points raised previously by Patent Owner before
`the Federal Circuit with respect to claim 1.
`On page 22 of the Final Written Decision, we addressed Patent
`Owner’s argument that, in essence, Dr. Beaman’s original declaration
`(Ex. 1018 ¶ 95) should be given little to no weight (e.g., no substantial
`weight), because during cross-examination he expressed doubt that he would
`import EVH’s horizontal distance channels into Raith. Final Written
`Decision 22. We explained that Dr. Beaman’s testimony, however, was
`taken out of context by Patent Owner because the testimony was based on
`ways to bodily incorporate parts of EVH into Raith. Id.
`For example, when asked if “[y]ou would want to take this horizontal
`and put it right into the vertical frames of Raith,” Dr. Beaman testified that
`“I’m not sure I’d take that particular element and stick it right into Raith.”
`Ex. 2003, 106. We did not give this testimony much weight because the line
`of questioning was with respect to sticking the horizontal stringer right into
`Raith. In other words, the line of questing was, to us, with respect to bodily
`incorporating elements from EVH into Raith. In any event, Dr. Beaman also
`testified, “you could take this structure [bottom distance channel 11 in EVH]
`and use it directly into Raith.” Ex. 2003, 105:14–23. At another point, he
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`similarly testified. Id. at 116:17–24 (“Q: But you do opine that a person of
`skill would have found it feasible and desirable to use the distance channel
`of EVH with the Raith system as a manner of affixing and supporting the
`glass panels of Raith, correct? A. I think you could or you could just take
`the entire glass panel of EVH and have the connection method of Raith.”);
`see also id. at 118–119.
`Dr. Beaman’s cross-examination testimony is consistent with, and
`confirms, his original testimony that (1) Raith does not show details of a
`horizontal stringer for retaining glass panels (compare Ex. 1018 ¶ 95 with
`Ex. 2003, 122:9–19); (2) EVH does show details of horizontal stringers for
`retaining glass panels (compare Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 77, 78, 95 with Ex. 2003,
`104:10–105:23); and (3) a person having ordinary skill in the art would have
`recognized that securing glass panels both vertically and horizontally, e.g.,
`on all four sides as opposed to just vertically, would have been desirable
`(compare Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 78, 90, 95 with Ex. 2003, 124:3–17). When viewing
`his testimony as a whole, we find, as we did before, Dr. Beaman to be a
`credible witness. We further determine that his cross-examination testimony
`does not undermine his original declaration such that we should give no
`weight to his original testimony (e.g., Ex. 1018) as Patent Owner urges us to
`do.
`
`Additionally, independent record evidence supports Petitioner’s
`showing why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined
`Raith with EVH. Raith itself describes “modular structural components
`[that] may be easily assembled and disassembled with various head and
`base assemblies to create a variety of different screen or partition systems.”
`Ex. 1003, 1:12–15. EVH describes such head and base assemblies.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`Ex. 1004, Fig. 2, elements 9, 11 (e.g., “horizontal stringers”).1 Such
`descriptions support, and are consistent with, Petitioner’s showing that a
`person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use
`EVH’s horizontal distance channels as an obvious selection for the “head
`and base assemblies” of Raith for securing glass panels horizontally (as
`taught by EVH, but not clearly taught by Raith). Pet. 24–25; Final Written
`Decision 16–17; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 77, 78, 95.
`For similar reasons provided above, we also do not find that Dr.
`Beaman’s cross-examination testimony undermines his original declaration
`with respect to the combinations of Raith and Yu and Raith and MacGregor.
`See, e.g., Final Written Decision at 28–29, 34. Again, we explained that Dr.
`Beaman’s testimony was taken out of context by Patent Owner because the
`testimony was based on ways to bodily incorporate parts of Yu or
`MacGregor into Raith. Id. In other words, the line of questing was, to us,
`with respect to bodily incorporating elements from Yu or MacGregor into
`Raith.
`For example, when asked whether a horizontal stringer of Yu “could
`be used to replace a part in a glass panel of Raith,” Dr. Beaman testified that
`“top and bottom would be the place to do it, and I’m not sure you could do it
`there. These are really for affixing, tapping in tiles that you could change
`
`
`1 As we stated in our Final Written Decision, contrary to Patent Owner’s
`arguments, Raith does not describe head and base assemblies in the context
`of any of the other described “assemblies” of the invention. Final Written
`Decision 18–19. In addition, Raith itself further supports the combination of
`“other head and base assemblies” from other existing partition systems, like
`EVH’s distance channels with the modular components of Raith as asserted
`by Petitioner. Id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003, 16:38–44).
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`out.” Ex. 2003, 139:13–16. The line of questioning was with respect to
`combining Yu’s horizontal structure with Raith’s glass panel, a combination
`neither Petitioner nor Dr. Beaman proposed to make. Rather, the proposed
`combination involves removable panel tiles, not glass panels. See, e.g.,
`Pet. 37; Ex. 1018 ¶ 148. Accordingly, Dr. Beaman’s testimony regarding
`glass panels with the Yu horizontal stringers was weighted appropriately,
`e.g., given little weight, because that line of questioning was not particularly
`relevant to Petitioner’s position with respect to combining Raith and Yu. In
`any event, Dr. Beaman testified that “[y]ou could affix glass panels . . . to
`the Yu Structure.” Ex. 2003, 139:18–19. Dr. Beaman also testified that he
`would not “put the Yu in the solid panels” too, but again the questions were
`with respect to “solid panels” not “removable panel tiles.” PO Resp. 43
`(citing Ex. 2003, 138:18–139:7). Accordingly, we gave such testimony the
`weight it was entitled.
`In addition, independent record evidence supports Petitioner’s
`showing why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined
`Raith with Yu. Yu describes cross rails that have channels for receiving
`hook-like projections of connector brackets that support various wall
`accessories in the form of furniture components, such as a storage cabinet.
`Ex. 1005, 13:65–14:3, 14:51–66, 24:51–60, 25:24–40. Yu’s horizontal
`members also include connectors for connection to T-shaped beads secured
`to cover pads or tiles. Id. at 24:3–29, 25:24–40. Such descriptions support,
`and are consistent with, Petitioner’s showing that a person having ordinary
`skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Yu with Raith because
`doing so would provide the ability to easily attach discrete tiles and for
`hanging furniture components from the panel system of Raith. Pet. 37. As
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`explained in the Final Written Description, Raith itself explains that its
`modular components may be combined with existing partition systems, like
`Yu. Final Written Decision 28 (citing Ex. 1003, 16:38–44).
`Similarly, with respect to the combination of Raith and MacGregor,
`Dr. Beaman’s testimony was taken out of context by Patent Owner because
`the testimony was based on ways to bodily incorporate parts of MacGregor
`into Raith. Final Written Decision 34. For example, when asked whether a
`horizontal stringer of MacGregor could be imported into Raith, Dr. Beaman
`testified that “I don’t think we could directly import them in,” but he later
`clarified that you could if you make the panels “detachable and attachable.”
`Ex. 2003, 159:18–19, 160:19–22. His testimony is consistent with his
`original declaration, where he testified that it would have been obvious to
`modify Raith to use MacGregor’s stringers and aesthetic surfaces (cover
`tiles) (e.g., attachable and detachable) to affix to the horizontal stringers.
`Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 179, 189. Once again, we find, as we did before, Dr. Beaman to
`be a credible witness. His cross-examination does not undermine his
`original testimony such that we should give no substantial weight to his
`original testimony (e.g., Ex. 1018) as Patent Owner urges us to do.
`For all of the reasons stated in the Final Written Decision, along with
`the additional reasons provided here, Petitioner has proven, by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 6, 7, and 15–18 are
`unpatentable over the combination of Raith and EVH; claims 1, 4, 5, and 9
`are unpatentable over the combination of Raith and Yu; claims 1, 4, 10, 19,
`and 20 are unpatentable over the combination of Raith and MacGregor;
`claim 25 is unpatentable over the combination of Raith, MacGregor, and
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`Rozier, and claim 14 is unpatentable over the combination of Raith, EVH,
`and Dixon.
`B. Obviousness of Claims 11 and 13 over Raith and EVH
`Petitioner contends that claims 11 and 13 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Raith and EVH. Pet. 21–22, 27–28, 32.2
`To support its contentions, Petitioner provides explanations as to how the
`prior art meets each claim limitation. Id. Petitioner also relies upon a
`Declaration of Joseph J. Beaman, Jr. (“Dr. Beaman”). Ex. 1018.
`Claim 11 depends directly from claim 1 and includes “a levelling
`system having: a universal foot; a leveller capable of engaging said universal
`foot; and a structural extrusion to engage surface of said at least one
`module, said structural extrusion connecting to said leveller, wherein said
`leveller provides the sole connection between said universal foot and said
`module.” Ex. 1001, 10:66–11:4. Claim 13 depends directly from claim 11
`and recites “a base trim, said base trim attaching to said universal foot.” Id.
`at 11:13–15.
`In the Petition, Petitioner relies on EVH’s description of glide
`assemblies 25 mounted to vertical posts 13 of a support frame 23 of a wall
`panel system to meet the claim 11 limitations. Pet. 21, 27–28, 32. In
`particular, Petitioner contends that floor channel 19 and glide assembly
`55 shown in Figures 10–12 of EVH respectively meet the “universal foot”
`and “leveller” limitations. Id. Petitioner provides the following annotated
`EVH Figures 10 and 12, along with a colored bullet-point list, to illustrate
`how EVH meets the elements of claims 11 and 13. Id. at 22; see also Ex.
`
`
`2 We address the newly instituted claims in the order presented in the
`Petition.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`1018 ¶ 98.
`
`
`
`
`
`trim")
`
`Grooves (“channei for
`
`receiving [g‘ass]
`
`divider”)
`
`Base cover (”base
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`Petitioner annotated EVH Figures 10 and 12 and colored bullet-point
`
`list, to illustrate a glide assembly.
`
`Petitioner’s annotated figures and colored bullet-point list show that
`the green shaded item is what Petitioner relies on to meet the claim 11
`“universal foot,” the blue shaded item is what Petitioner relies on to meet the
`claim 11 “leveller,” and the red shaded item is what Petitioner relies on to
`meet the claim 13 “base trim.” Notably missing from the above illustration
`is any shading or identification of the claim 11 “structural extrusion,” even
`though vertical posts 13 are in the above illustration.
`In our Decision on Institution, we determined that Petitioner had not
`accounted for the claimed “structural extrusion” limitation of claim 11,
`because “[t]here is no mention in either the Petition or the Beaman
`Declaration of what element in EVH meets the ‘structural extrusion’
`limitation.” Dec. 12. We further explained that Petitioner had failed to
`comply with the requirement that its petition specify where each element of
`the claim is found in the prior art relied upon, citing 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(4). Id. Lastly, we determined that because claim 13 depends
`from claim 11 and includes all of the limitations of claim 11, Petitioner also
`failed to establish that claim 13 would have been obvious over Raith and
`EVH. Id. Petitioner did not seek rehearing of our determination with
`respect to claims 11 and 13. Req. Reh’g; Decision Req. Reh’g.
`In its Supplemental Brief, Petitioner argues that we misapprehended
`and overlooked the Petition and Dr. Beaman’s original declaration that
`EVH’s vertical posts 13 meet the “structural extrusion” limitation. Pet.
`Supp. Br. 5–6. We disagree. We could not have overlooked something that
`is not in either the Petition or Dr. Beaman’s original declaration. On page 5
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`
`of its Supplemental Brief, Petitioner argues that the Petition and Dr. Beaman
`equated EVH’s “vertical posts of a support frame” with the structural
`extrusion limitation. Id. at 5. Nowhere in the Petition or paragraph 98 of
`Dr. Beaman’s original declaration is there an explanation that EVH’s
`vertical posts of a support frame meet, or equate to, the structural extrusion
`limitation. In fact, the Petition explains that a person having ordinary skill in
`the art at the time of the invention would have understood EVH’s “vertical
`posts [13] to be ‘vertical end frames’ according to claim 1.” Pet. 20.
`Moreover, as explained above, vertical posts 13 are seen in the
`annotated figures presented in both the Petition and Dr. Beaman’s
`declaration, but are not annotated or color-coded like all other items.
`Accordingly, the Petition only makes clear that the vertical posts are the
`claimed vertical end frames of claim 1. Id. The Petition never explains or
`indicates in any way that the same item (EVH’s vertical posts 13) also meets
`the claim 11’s “structural extrusion” element and all that it entails, e.g., an
`explanation of how the supposed “structural extrusion” (vertical post)
`engages the surface of at least one module. To the extent that Petitioner
`argues that we should have independently determined that EVH’s vertical
`posts 13 also meet the “structural extrusion” limitation of claim 8, we
`disagree. It is not our role to speculate as to what a petition may mean or to
`make out a petitioner’s case to the detriment of a patent owner. Petitioner
`bears the burden of demonstrating that a particular feature is met by the prior
`art, not the Board. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Petitioner must make its case in
`the first instance by explaining in the petition where each element of the
`claim is found in the prior art relied upon. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).
`Petitioner has failed to meet these requirements. For all of the above
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`
`reasons, Petitioner has failed to show we misapprehended or overlooked any
`matters with respect to claim 11.
`In its supplemental brief, Petitioner argues for the first time that
`(1) EVH’s vertical posts are “structural extrusions”; (2) it would have been
`obvious to modify Raith’s vertical frame members using extrusion, as
`opposed to roll-forming, techniques; and (3) a person of skill in the art
`would have found it obvious to attach EVH’s leveller to Raith’s modified
`vertical frame member. Pet. Supp. Br. 6–9 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:6–12;
`Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 98–99, 109; Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 9–15). Petitioner’s new theory is best
`summed up as follows in Dr. Beaman’s new declaration:
`Claim 11 would have been obvious to a person of skill as of the
`priority date of the ’901 patent for the reasons given in my
`initial declaration, including that EVH discloses “a structural
`extrusion connecting to said leveller,” which, in the case of
`EVH, is simply the vertical posts of the support frame of EVH.3
`Similarly, when combined with Raith, a person of skill would
`have found it obvious to attach the EVH leveller (i.e., glide
`assemblies) to the vertical end frames of Raith, which a person
`of skill would have known could interchangeably be roll-
`formed or extruded depending on the particular manufacturing
`needs.
`Ex. 1038 ¶15.
`Petitioner’s explanation in its supplemental brief, along with new
`evidence in support of the argument, disregards our order that “Petitioner
`may not submit new evidence, issues, or argument that it could have
`presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”
`Order 3. Accordingly, we need not and do not consider the new evidence
`
`
`3 As explained above, Dr. Beaman did not make any such explanation in his
`original declaration.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`and new arguments made in the Supplemental Brief that Petitioner could
`have presented as part of the Petition. Cf. Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v.
`Illumina Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Once the Board
`identifies new issues presented for the first time in reply, neither this court
`nor the Board must parse the reply brief to determine which, if any, parts of
`that brief are responsive and which are improper.”).
`For all of the above reasons, we determine that Petitioner has failed to
`show that claims 11 and 13 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`obvious over Raith and EVH.
`C. Obviousness of Claim 8 over Raith and Yu
`Petitioner contends that claim 8 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Raith and Yu. Pet. 33–36, 39, 43. To support its
`contentions, Petitioner provides explanations as to how the prior art meets
`each claim limitation. Id. Petitioner also relies upon a Declaration of
`Dr. Beaman. Ex. 1018. Claim 8 is reproduced below with emphasis added.
`8. The movable reconfigurable wall system of claim 1,
`wherein said stringers include a cantilever channel stringer, said
`cantilever channel stringer having: a central horizontally
`extending channel portion with a generally L-shaped slot, said
`L-shaped slot adapted to receive and engage a substantially L-
`shaped hook formed on a wall accessory; and upper portion
`having a tile support; a lower portion having a tile support; and
`a pair of extending webs connecting said channel portion to
`said upper and a lower portion.
`
`For purposes of this decision, we focus on the italicized language
`above (the disputed claim language). In the Petition claim chart for claim 8,
`Petitioner asserts that Yu “discloses cross rails that include channels that
`receive hook-like ends of connector brackets. Cross rails and associated
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`mounting brackets include connectors for connection to the T-shaped beads
`of cover pads, or tiles.” Pet. 43. With respect to the Petition’s description of
`Yu, Petitioner argues that Yu’s cross rails 200 and mounting brackets 189-5
`mounted to cross rails 200 combine to define the “channel stringers” of
`claim 8 and that Yu’s cross rails 200 are “L-shaped” and that Yu’s L-shaped
`hooks are received in channels 51-5. Id. at 35.
`Petitioner provides the following two annotated and modified versions
`of Yu Figure 30 to illustrate how Yu meets the “generally L-shaped slot . . .
`adapted to receive and engage a substantially L-shaped hook” limitation of
`claim 8. Pet. 36; see also Ex. 1018 ¶ 155.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends that the “modified annotated version of Fig. 30
`shows how the profiles of the cross rail 200 and mounting bracket 189-5 are
`juxtaposed, and as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Pet.
`35–36 (citing Ex. 1018 ¶ 155). Petitioner further contends that the green
`markings in the modified annotated version of Yu’s Figure 30 shown above
`demonstrates an L-shaped slot. Id. In our Decision on Institution, we stated
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`that “Petitioner has not explained sufficiently how the modified Yu Figure
`30 meets the [L-shaped slot] limitation.” Institution Decision 18. As we
`stated in our Decision, if Petitioner relies only on 51-5 as the L-shaped slot,
`Petitioner has not demonstrated how 51-5 or the green L floating above 51-5
`illustrates an L-shaped slot. Id. We also explained that if Petitioner is
`relying on bracket 189-5 mounted on cross rail 200, along with 51-5, where
`189-5 represents the boundary of the long part of the green L from above,
`Petitioner has not explained sufficiently how Yu’s bracket 189-5 (which is
`needed to form the L-shaped slot) engages connector bracket 26. Id.
`Petitioner requested rehearing of our decision, disagreeing with our
`assessment of what Petitioner meant with its annotated and modified Yu
`Figure 30. Req. Reh’g. In our decision, we explained that Petitioner, not the
`Board, bears the burden of demonstrating that a particular feature is met by
`the prior art, citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Decision Req. Reh’g 3. We
`further reiterated that the Petition is unclear on Petitioner’s position with
`respect to what element(s) and how such element(s) meets the disputed
`claim langauge. Id. In its rehearing request, Petitioner explained, that it is
`bracket 189-5 that “defines the longer top portion of the L-shaped slot.”
`Req. Reh’g 13. Petitioner further argued that it need not demonstrate that
`bracket 189-5 engages connector bracket 26 because nothing in claim 8
`requires all surfaces or portions of the L-shaped slot to directly engage all
`surfaces or portions of a substantially L-shaped hook. Id. As we pointed
`out, however, the Petition does not explain how Yu describes or shows an L-
`shaped slot adapted to receive and engage a substantially L-shaped hook.
`Decision Req. Reh’g 4. As we stated therein, the Petition simply is unclear.
`In its supplemental brief, Petitioner argues that it made clear that Yu’s
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`connector brackets are received in channels 51-5. Pet. Supp. Br. 2–3.
`Petitioner, however, does not apparently rely on channels 51-5, alone, to
`meet the L-shaped slot. Rather, in its rehearing request, Petitioner makes
`clear for the first time that it is bracket 189-5 that “defines the longer top
`portion of the L-shaped slot.” Req. Reh’g 13. Thus, it is channel 51-5,
`along with bracket 189-5 that Petitioner now somehow contends meets the
`L-shaped slot. Pet. 35–36 (citing Ex. 1018 ¶ 155 and showing modified Yu
`Figure 30). This was confirmed both in Petitioner’s rehearing request and
`during oral argument. Req. Reh’g 13; Tr. 2, 7–8. The Petition does state
`that “[t]he cross rails 200 and the mounting brackets 189-5 mounted to the
`crossrails 200, combine to define ‘channel stringers’ according to claim 8.”
`Pet. 35. The Petition further explains, for example, that the mounting
`brackets and cross rails together define “Y-shaped resilient connectors 190-
`5, 190-5’ for connection to T-shaped beads that are secured to cover pads, or
`tiles.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 24:3–29, 25:24–40, Figs. 2, 26–30). The
`Petition does not explain, however, with the particularity necessary to
`apprise us of sufficiently clear structural and mechanical details, how the
`combination of mounting brackets 189-5 and cross rails 200, or more
`importantly mounting brackets 189-5 and channels 51-5, defines an “L-
`shaped slot” as claimed. Indeed, the claim chart at page 43 of the Petition is
`even less clear, and states for claim 8 that it is simply Yu’s “cross rails that
`include channels that receive hook-like ends of connector brackets.” Id. at
`43. The additional articulation for “a tile support,” in the claim chart for
`claim 8, addresses the combination of “cross rails and associated mounting
`brackets,” for the Y-shaped “connectors for connection to the T-shaped
`beads of cover pads, or tiles,” but not for the “L-shaped slot.” Id.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`Accordingly, the Petition does not explain how the combination of cross
`rails and mounting brackets produces the confines of what it argues is the L-
`shaped slot adapted to receive and engage a substantially L-shaped hook.
`Again, the Petition does not explain how the combination of channel 51-5
`(or cross rails 200) and bracket 189-5 meets the limitation. Moreover, the
`Petition does not explain sufficiently how 51-5 alone meets the disputed L-
`shaped limitation; a position Petitioner acknowledges it never asserted in the
`first place. Tr. 2, 7:10–8:12. For all of these reasons, we determine that the
`Petition fails to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 8 would
`have been obvious over Raith and Yu.
`D. Obviousness of Claims 21–23 over Raith and MacGregor
`Petitioner contends that claims 21–23 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Raith and MacGregor. Pet. 44–48,
`51–52. To support its contentions, Petitioner provides explanations as to
`how the prior art meets each claim limitation. Id. Petitioner also relies upon
`a Declaration of Dr. Beaman. Ex. 1018.
`Claim 21 recites “[t]he movable reconfigurable wall unit of claim 1,
`wherein said vertical end frame depth is extended to provide a deeper wall.”
`Claim 22 depends from claim 21 and recites “wherein said deeper wall is
`adapted to accommodate a rear-projection video system.” Claim 23 depends
`from claim 21 and recites “wherein said deeper wall is adapted to
`accommodate an integrated storage system.”
`In the Petition claim chart for claim 21, Petitioner asserts that
`MacGregor “discloses the partition panels receive one or more modular
`accessory units.” Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 45, 48, 52, 59, Figs. 1UT, 1T,
`9, 12; Ex. 1018 ¶ 198). The Petition further asserts that MacGregor
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`describes partition panels including horizontal cross members, intermediate
`beam