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
`__________________
`
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF JOSEPH J. BEAMAN, JR.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALLSTEEL INC.
`Exhibit 1018, Page 1
`
`
`_________________
`
`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
`__________________
`
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF JOSEPH J. BEAMAN, JR.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALLSTEEL INC.
`Exhibit 1018, Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`Introduction and Summary of Opinion
`
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by HNI Corporation and Allsteel, Inc. to provide
`
`analysis and expert opinions on various topics, including: (1) an overview of the
`
`technology related to U.S. Pat. No. 8,024,901 (“the ‘901 Patent”), the challenged
`
`patent in this proceeding; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (3) the
`
`patentability of the claims of the ‘901 Patent. In particular, for the purposes of this
`
`report, I have been asked to provide an analysis of the scope and content of the
`
`‘901 Patent relative to the state of the art at the time of the earliest application
`
`underlying the ‘901 Patent. I have also been retained to provide analysis regarding
`
`what a person of ordinary skill in the mechanical arts related to the modular
`
`partition and wall field would have understood as of the filing date of the ‘901
`
`Patent.
`
`2.
`
`This report summarizes the opinions that I have formed to date, and it
`
`is based on personal knowledge, skill, experience, and review of materials read and
`
`considered in connection with this opinion. I may modify my opinions if
`
`necessary, based on further review and analysis of information provided to me
`
`subsequent to the serving of this report. If called to testify at a U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (“PTO”) hearing regarding the contents of this report, I will do
`
`so.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1018, Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Based on the level of ordinary skill in the art and my investigation I
`
`have come to the following conclusions:
`
`•
`
`4.
`
`Asserted claims 1-25 patent are unpatentable.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement this report as permitted to address
`
`any issues raised by expert(s) engaged by Dirtt Environmental Solutions Ltd.
`
`(“DIRTT”) or resulting from further discovery. Additionally, I reserve my right to
`
`supplement this section if new information that would affect the priority entitled to
`
`the ‘901 Patent, becomes available to me.
`
`Background, Education, and Experience
`5.
`
`I received my Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering with
`
`high honors from the University of Texas at Austin in 1972. I received my Master
`
`of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from The University of Texas at
`
`Austin in 1975. I received my Sc.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1979.
`
`6.
`
`I am currently the Earnest F. Gloyna Regents Chair in Engineering
`
`and Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering in the Cockrell School
`
`of Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin in Austin, Texas. I am also the
`
`former Chair of the Department of Mechanical Engineering in the Cockrell School
`
`of Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin (serving 2001–2012). I have
`
`received numerous awards for accomplishments in these roles, including being
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1018, Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`named the Distinguished Mechanical Engineer by the Mechanical Engineering
`
`Distinguished Alumni organization at the University of Texas at Austin and being
`
`named a member of the National Academy of Engineers in 2013. Most recently, in
`
`2015, I was elected as a fellow of the National Academy of Inventors. I am a
`
`Professional Engineer in the State of Texas, and I serve on the board of directors of
`
`Society of Manufacturing Engineers. I also am the technical advisor for advanced
`
`analysis in the Digital Manufacturing and Design Institute for Innovation (DMDII),
`
`located in Chicago, IL.
`
`7. My work in the classroom consists of both teaching and mentoring. I
`
`teach or have taught classes relating to the following subjects: machine elements,
`
`dynamics, fluid mechanics, and design. I have also been an advisor for numerous
`
`design teams over the course of my teaching career. For the past 32 years, I have
`
`also overseen, supervised, and mentored mechanical engineering students in
`
`multiple senior and graduate projects.
`
`8.
`
`In addition to my work in the classroom, I concentrate a large portion
`
`of my time on research and teaching in the mechanical engineering field, with an
`
`emphasis on advanced manufacturing techniques, especially processes involving
`
`heating and forming various materials, which includes formation of metal ingots
`
`that are used in final extrusion and forging operations. For example, I have
`
`performed research with the Special Metals Processing Consortium relating to
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1018, Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`controlling their solidification processes. Also, a significant portion of my
`
`research has concerned the design and manufacture of 3-D printing machinery,
`
`having served as Chief Technology Officer of DTM Corporation, which
`
`commercialized Selective Laser Sintering (SLS). As part of my duties, I led the
`
`design of the first machine, which involved the industrial design and aesthetics of
`
`the machine. I was one the inventors of SLS technology and a founder of DTM .
`
`9.
`
`In 1979, I began working at the University of Texas at Austin as an
`
`assistant professor. In 1985, I was promoted to Associate Professor, and was
`
`subsequently promoted to Full Professor in 1989. I became a chaired professor in
`
`2001. Also in 2001, I became the Department Chair of Mechanical Engineering
`
`and served in that role until 2012, serving the longest term in the Department’s
`
`history. I am presently the Earnest F. Gloyna Chair in Engineering and director of
`
`the Advanced Manufacturing and Design Center at the University of Texas at
`
`Austin.
`
`10. Additionally, I am a named inventor on nineteen U.S. patents with one
`
`just allowed in July 2015, have authored and co-authored numerous publications in
`
`the field of mechanical engineering, and have worked, consulted, and testified in
`
`several patent cases. All publications I have authored within the preceding ten
`
`years and the cases in which I testified in the last four years as an expert at trial or
`
`by deposition are attached as Appendix A.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1018, Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`11.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual rate of $450.00 per hour for my
`
`work in this matter. My compensation is not contingent upon the outcome of this
`
`litigation. This compensation and these reimbursements are not contingent on my
`
`performance, my opinions, the outcome of this matter, or any other issues involved
`
`in or related to this matter. I have no financial interest in HNI Corporation or
`
`Allsteel Inc. In addition, I have been informed that DIRTT purports to own the
`
`‘901 Patent. I have no financial interest in DIRTT.
`
`Materials Reviewed
`12. The list of documents that I considered for this report is attached as
`
`Appendix B.
`
`Introduction to the ‘901 Patent
`13. The ‘901 Patent (Ex. 1001) discloses a reconfigurable wall system
`
`that is used most commonly in an office environment. In a preferred embodiment,
`
`the wall system consists of a module constructed of a frame, horizontal stringers,
`
`and vertical end frames that contain vertical flanges. Aesthetic tiles are mounted to
`
`the system by clips. A removable connecting strip is used to attach modules
`
`together by connecting the flanges of two end frames of two modules. For
`
`example, referring to Fig. 1 below (Fig. 30 in the patent), in one embodiment
`
`disclosed in the ‘901 Patent, vertical end frames 12 contain L-shaped flanges 23.
`
`Each flange has a wedge-shaped protrusion, or catch in the form of a bead 27.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1018, Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`Vertical zippers 25 connect the two end frames of two modules. Each zipper
`
`includes a central spine and a pair of arms. Each arm includes a retention
`
`mechanism in the form of a bead 31. As described in the Patent, “[e]ach arm
`
`includes a bead 31 that snap fits with beads 27 on flanges 23 for a secure but
`
`releasable connection.” (col 5, ll 27-29)
`
`
`
`Figure A: End frames. Figure 30 from ‘901 Patent, excerpted and
`additionally annotated.
`
`14. A snap fit is a specific type of mechanical connection, or interference
`
`fit, in which attachment occurs between locating and locking components.
`
`Locators and locks are given specific meanings in snap fits. Locators are relatively
`
`rigid features of a snap fit. They provide the positioning between the base part and
`
`the mating part. On the other hand, locks are flexible or compliant since they
`
`deflect to allow assembly and attachment. The hook or retention member in the
`
`lock holds the locking position or interface in place. The arms 30 in the ‘901 Patent
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1018, Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`are locks and cantilever hooks of the snap fit in the Patent. The hook part is called
`
`a retention mechanism. A common locator of a snap fit is a catch, which can be a
`
`wedge-shaped feature. The flanges 27 in the ‘901 Patent are locators and catches
`
`of the snap fit in the Patent.
`
`15. There is only one independent claim (claim 1) and it primarily
`
`discloses hook and catch snap fit connectors for a wall module system. More
`
`specifically, it discloses a wall module system that has end frames, horizontal
`
`stringers attached to the end frames, and an aesthetic surface affixed to the
`
`stringers. The end frames, along with a removable connecting strip, provide a snap
`
`fit connection between different wall modules. The snap fit connection of claim 1
`
`includes a locator described as a vertically extending flange having a beaded
`
`portion, which is a locator or catch located on the end frames. The lock component
`
`of the snap fit connection of claim 1 is provided by a pair of spaced apart flexible
`
`arms on the removable connecting strip. Each of the arms has a beaded portion,
`
`which is a hook or retention mechanism of a snap fit connection.
`
`16.
`
`In addition to the independent claim, the ’901 Patent has 24 dependent
`
`claims, which address a variety of largely unrelated features that are commonly
`
`associated with wall systems.
`
`State of the Art as of the Priority Date for the ‘901 Patent
`
`A. Description of the Related Art at the Priority Date of the ‘901 Patent
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1018, Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`17. The ‘901 Patent, entitled, “Integrated Reconfigurable Wall System”
`
`was filed on August 17, 2005 and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent
`
`Application No. 60/601,985, filed on August 17, 2004. (Ex. 1001) Given the
`
`priority claims to the provisional application, it is my understanding that the
`
`earliest possible filing date to which the ‘901 Patent may be entitled is August 17,
`
`2004. However, certain claim elements are not supported by the provisional
`
`application. For example, although claim 1 recites the alternatives of beaded
`
`portions associated with “a wall bracket, a finishing trim, or a connection post,”
`
`provisional application 60/601,985 (the “’985 Application”)(Ex. 1014) 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. To
`
`the extent that the ‘985 provisional did not disclose all the subject matter claimed
`
`in the ‘901 Patent, I understand that all claims of the ‘901 Patent may not be
`
`entitled to the August 17, 2004 date.
`
`18. Moreover, it should be noted that I am not waiving my ability to
`
`challenge any attempt by DIRTT to claim priority before the effective filing date of
`
`September 15, 2005.
`
`19. As of this effective filing date or the provisional filing date, movable
`
`reconfigurable wall systems were well known. For example, U.S. Patent No.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1018, Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`4,438,614 (“Raith”)(Ex. 1003), which issued on March 27, 1984, taught the
`
`following:
`
`a unified partition system wherein readily manufactured, modular
`
`structural components may be easily assembled and disassembled
`
`with various head and base assemblies to create a variety of different
`
`screen or partition systems, and still more particularly to such a
`
`partition system with accessory supporting capabilities.
`
`
`(Ex. 1003, col. 1:11-17.)
`
`
`20. The ‘901 Patent describes a movable reconfigurable wall system
`
`purported to address a number of problems, including maximizing floor space,
`
`aesthetics, the ability to change wall height, and the ability to substitute different
`
`types of walls within a wall system. (Ex. 1001, 1:20-40).
`
`21. All of these features were also well-known and expressed in the prior
`
`art.
`
`22. First, it was well-known that movable wall systems allowed users to
`
`maximize available floor space. For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,161,347 to Yu
`
`(Ex. 1005) discloses a “space saving” wall panel system.
`
`23. Second, the movable wall systems known as of the priority date of the
`
`‘901 Patent recognized the importance of aesthetics. For example, Canadian
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1018, Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 2,002,674 to Price (Ex. 1002) describes the desirability of pencil-line
`
`joints in movable wall system as a means of avoiding “unsightly” gaps.
`
`24. Third, the ability to quickly change wall height was another known
`
`and expressed benefit of movable and reconfigurable wall systems. For example,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,277,920 to Dixon (Ex. 1008) discloses an improved mechanism
`
`for adjusting the height of portable, movable walls and notes that the prior art
`
`includes systems that include mechanisms for extending wall panels in the vertical
`
`direction.
`
`25. Similarly, the ability to substitute different types of walls was a well-
`
`known benefit of movable and reconfigurable wall systems. For example, Raith
`
`discloses solid panel assemblies that include panels clad with fabric, wood veneer,
`
`vinyl, or others. (Ex. 1003 at 8:66-68, Fig.12).
`
`Legal Standards
`26.
`
`I have not been asked to offer an opinion on the law; however, as an
`
`expert assisting the Board in determining patentability, I understand that I am
`
`obliged to follow existing law. I have therefore been asked to apply the following
`
`legal principles to my analysis of patentability in light of the prior art.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`27. When performing my analysis, I compared the disclosures in the prior
`
`art to the claimed invention in the ‘901 Patent. I applied the broadest reasonable
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1018, Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`construction in view of the specification. I understand that Petitioner has stated
`
`that the broadest reasonable construction of “horizontal stringer” is a “horizontal
`
`member.” This construction is consistent with my understanding of how a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “horizontal stringer” as it is
`
`used in the ’901 patent. 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. See also WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD COLLEGE
`
`DICTIONARY (4th ed. 2001)(Ex. 1022); Scientific and Technical Terms, MCGRAW-
`
`HILL DICTIONARY (6th ed. 2003)(Ex. 1023); THE NEW OXFORD AMERICAN
`
`DICTIONARY (2001)(Ex. 1024).
`
`B. 35 USC § 103 – Obviousness
`28.
`
`It is my understanding that a patent claim is unpatentable as “obvious”
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the “differences between the subject matter sought to
`
`be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`
`been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to which said subject matter pertains.” I am informed that an obviousness
`
`determination involves analysis of four factors: (1) the scope and content of the
`
`prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the differences between the
`
`prior art and the claims at issue; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1018, Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`For the objective evidence of nonobvioussness, it is my understanding that there
`
`must be a nexus between the evidence and the claimed subject matter for the
`
`evidence to have any weight in determining whether the claim is invalid as
`
`obvious. As noted below, at this time, I am not aware of any objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness (and thus I am also not aware of any nexus linking any such
`
`evidence to the claims) for the ‘901 Patent. In the event plaintiffs submit objective
`
`evidence of nonobviousness, I reserve the right to respond.
`
`29.
`
`In addition to the factors discussed above, it is my understanding that
`
`an invention is obvious if it includes an improvement over the prior art that is no
`
`more than the predictable use of elements from the prior art according to their
`
`established functions. Design incentives and other market forces may prompt a
`
`variation of a work available in one field of endeavor, either within the same field
`
`or a different one; if a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a
`
`predictable variation of that work, then the work likely is obvious. Moreover, if a
`
`technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, the
`
`technique likely is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.
`
`30. To determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine
`
`known elements of the prior art in the fashion claimed in a patent, it may be
`
`necessary to examine interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1018, Page 13
`
`
`
`
`
`demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the
`
`background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art;
`
`however, precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
`
`patent claim need not be identified because the inferences and creative steps that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would employ may be taken into account.
`
`31. Obviousness may be found by virtue of a combination of prior art
`
`references in which one or more of the references contains a teaching, suggestion,
`
`or motivation to combine elements of the prior art; however, an obviousness
`
`analysis is not confined to a formula in which a teaching, suggestion, or motivation
`
`to combine items of prior art must be identified. In determining whether the subject
`
`matter of a claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed
`
`purpose of the patentee controls; what matters is the objective reach of the claim. If
`
`a claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.
`
`32. One of the ways in which a patent’s subject matter can be proved
`
`obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of the invention a known
`
`problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s
`
`claims. The problem motivating the patentee may be only one of many addressed
`
`by the patent’s subject matter; thus, any need or problem known in the field of
`
`endeavor at the time of the invention and addressed by the patent can provide a
`
`reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1018, Page 14
`
`
`
`
`
`33. Common sense teaches that familiar items may have obvious uses
`
`beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be
`
`able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle; indeed,
`
`a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity. Where there is a
`
`design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to
`
`pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the
`
`anticipated success, it is likely not the product of innovation but of ordinary skill
`
`and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try
`
`may show that it was obvious under § 103.
`
`C. Alternative Limitations
`34. 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.” It
`
`is my understanding that the entire element is disclosed by the prior art if one
`
`alternative in a group of claimed alternatives is in the prior art.
`
`D. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`35.
`
`I understand that the earliest potential priority date of the ‘901 Patent
`
`is August 17, 2004, although as outlined above I do not believe the claims of the
`
`‘901 Patent to be supported by the ’985 provisional application, filed on that date.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1018, Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`Regardless, in my opinion, 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. I will apply this standard to
`
`my opinions in this case.
`
`Invalidity Analysis
`
`A.
`
`Introduction to the Prior Art References Applied
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,438,614 (“Raith”) (Ex. 1003)
`
`36.
`
`I understand that Raith issued on March 27th, 1984 and is thus prior
`
`art to the ‘901 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (Ex. 1003). I understand that
`
`Raith was not submitted to nor considered by the Examiner during prosecution of
`
`the ‘901 Patent.
`
`37.
`
`In my opinion, Raith is in the same field of endeavor as the ‘901
`
`Patent—movable and reconfigurable wall systems—and pertinent to the problems
`
`sought to be addressed by the ‘901 Patent.Similar to the ‘901 Patent, Raith relates
`
`to demountable interior partition systems that may be assembled into a variety of
`
`walls. Raith discloses a “readily manufacturable, modular structural components
`
`[that] may be easily assembled and disassembled…to create a variety of different
`
`screen or partition systems [including] … a partition system with accessory
`
`supporting capabilities.” Ex. 1003 at 1:10-17. Raith provides “a partition system
`
`where the panels or components may be held together solely by multi-purpose
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1018, Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`plastic strips.” Id. at 3:37-38. Raith discloses glass panel assemblies (“wall
`
`modules”) that include frame panels (“vertical end frames”) having mounting
`
`edges including J-shaped flanges (“vertically extending flanges”). Id. at 8:38-63,
`
`13:18-49, Figs.12,13,16,17. Raith teaches the use of elongated plastic connector
`
`strips (“removable connector strips”) for quickly and easily fastening the mounting
`
`edges of adjacent structural components together. Id. at 3:21-25, Figs.12,17.
`
`38. The annotated Figs. 12 and 17 of Raith below show that the mounting
`
`edges of adjacent wall panels in Raith include flanges with outwardly turned ends,
`
`or edges (“beaded portions”). In turn, the connector portions include opposed legs
`
`with inwardly turned ends, or edges (“beaded portions”). E.g., id at 8:19-
`
`9:13,13:42-49, Figs.12,17.
`
`
`Figure B: Annotated Fig. 17 and Fig. 12 from ‘901
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1018, Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`39. The J-shaped flanges 16 are formed at the edge portions of the face
`
`plates for solid panel assemblies or frame panels for glass panel assemblies. E.g.,
`
`Ex. 1003 at 5:63-67; 13:42-49, Figs.12,17. Each edge portion includes two J-
`
`shaped flanges. Id. In the same manner as the beaded portions of the flanges
`
`recited in claim 1, one J-shaped flange and its associated edge portion extends
`
`“toward the front surface” of the panel assembly and the other J-shaped flange and
`
`its associated edge portion extends “toward the rear surface” of the panel assembly.
`
`Id. at 6:15-20, Figs.12,17.
`
`40.
`
`In turn, each connector strip 70 includes a central U-shape body 71
`
`and a pair of legs adapted “to embrace and hold together the juxtaposed” J-shaped
`
`flanges 16 of adjacent panel assemblies to secure the panel assemblies together
`
`along their vertical height. E.g., id. at 2:67-3:1,8:38-55, Figs.12,17. In particular,
`
`the legs of each connector strip 70 are inwardly extending and further include
`
`inturned edges 75 that extend over the terminal edges 22 of the J-shaped flanges
`
`16. Id. at 8:42-47. The terminal edges 22 and the inturned edges 75 would be
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill to be “beaded portions,” according to
`
`claim 1. Accordingly, Raith discloses the claim 1 limitation requiring beaded
`
`portions of opposed vertically extending flanges fitting inside the arms of a
`
`connecting strip to hold the vertically extending flanges together to releasably
`
`connect two adjacent wall modules.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1018, Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`41. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that after
`
`pressing the connector strip onto the flanges, the connector strip can be pulled off
`
`the flanges to disconnect the adjacent panel assemblies. Raith also discloses that
`
`the connector strip is “releasably connecting” and “removable” as claimed in claim
`
`1. According to Raith, the “connector strip 70…is sufficiently flexible, although
`
`relatively stiff, to allow placement…for securely holding the panels together.” Ex.
`
`1003 at 8:44-48. Moreover, Raith explains that the panels are of a “demountable
`
`[] construction,” id. at 2:63-66, and that the connector strip allows for “quickly and
`
`easily fastening the mounting edges of adjacent structural components together,”
`
`id. at 3:20-25. Indeed, Raith discloses it is an “object of the invention to facilitate
`
`the assembly and disassembly of partition panel assemblies.” Id. at 3:33-35. A
`
`connector strip that is “flexible,” “quickly and easily fastens” a “demountable
`
`construction,” and is meant to “facilitate assembly and disassembly” would clearly
`
`be a removable connector, according to claim 1 of the ‘901 Patent. E.g., id. at
`
`1:10-17; 2:63-66; 3:20-25; 8:44-48; Figs. 12, 17. For at least such reasons, the
`
`inturned edges 75, or beaded portions, of the connector strip 70 would be
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill to releasably connect the terminal folded
`
`portion edges 22, or beaded portions of the flanges of adjacent wall panels,
`
`according to claim 1 of the ‘901 Patent.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1018, Page 19
`
`
`
`
`
`Canadian Patent No. 2,002,674 (“Price”)(Ex. 1002)
`
`42. Price is a Canadian patent that published on March 2, 1993 and is thus
`
`prior art to the ‘901 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (Ex. 1002). Price was not
`
`submitted to or considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the ‘901 Patent.
`
`43. 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., Ex. 1002 at Abstract of the Disclosure, Field of
`
`the 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, 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.” Id. at Background of
`
`Invention).
`
`44. Price discloses 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 of
`
`Invention, 15:10-15, Figs. 1, 3. Specifically, the side members 5 of Price provide
`
`the vertical end frames of claim 1 of the ‘901 Patent. As shown below, the frame
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1018, Page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`side members 5 are formed with “bayonet members 61,” which provide “vertically
`
`extending flanges” according to claim 1. Ex. 1002 at 15:10-15, Figs. 3, 4, 8.
`
`45. 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. 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure C: Annotated Fig. 4 and Fig. 8 from Price
`
`46. 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., Ex. 1002
`
`at 11:2-12, Figs.1,4. Thus, Price also teaches “horizontal stringers affixed between
`
`vertical end frames” according to claim 1 of the ‘901 Patent.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1018, Page 21
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure D: Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 from Price
`
`
`
`
`
`47. Price discloses that gypsum board panels 8 are mounted to the fronts
`
`and backs of the wall unit frames. E.g., Ex. 1002 at 7:9-10, 12:3-5, 13:21-14:4,
`
`Figs.1-4. In particular, Price discloses clamping brackets 27 for securing the
`
`panels 8 to the top and bottom members 3, 4 and suspension assemblies 10
`
`(“clips”) for securing the panels 8 to the lips 19 of the suspension channels 6. E.g.,
`
`id. at 11:24-27. Thus, Price discloses “an aesthetic surface affixed to said
`
`stringers” in the form of panels 8 affixed to top and bottom members 3, 4 and
`
`suspension assemblies 10, according to claim 1. The gypsum panels 8 would also
`
`be considered to be “tile panels” according to claim 4 by a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. For example, it is well known that gypsum panels are a standard wall
`
`material that can be painted, tiled, or simply left bare, according to individual
`
`preference. A person of ordinary skill would also understand the lips 19 of the
`
`channels 6 provide “protrusions” and that the panels 8 of Price include “clips” in
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1018, Page 22
`
`
`
`
`
`the form of clips 17 that affix the panels to the lips 19, according to the claim 5 of
`
`the ‘901 Patent. E.g., id. at 11:13-27.
`
`48. Price also discloses a “removable connecting strip” according to claim
`
`1 of the ‘901 Patent in the form of jointer members 60, which is a snap fit
`
`connector. According to Price, “[a]djoining sandwich panel units 1 are joined
`
`together by a jointer member 60. More particularly, the frame side members 5 are
`
`formed with bayonet members 61. The jointer member 60 has inwardly projecting
`
`members 62, 63 which form sockets that snap onto the bayonet members 61 to
`
`hold the units 1 together.” Ex. 1002 at 15:10-15. See also id. at Figs.1, 3, 4, 8, 9.
`
`49. First, a person of ordinary skill would readily have understood that
`
`connectors which “snap onto” side members 5 (i.e., snap fit connectors) for use in
`
`a system made to be “removable” and “quickly assembled and disassembled” are
`
`“removable connectors” according to claim 1. E.g., Ex. 1002 at 3:7-17, 15:10-15.
`
`The person of ordinary skill in the art would also have understood that the spaced
`
`apart, inwardly projecting members 63 of the jointer members 60 of Price are
`
`“flexible” so that the jointer members 60 are able to “snap onto” the bayonet
`
`members 61 of the frame side members 5. E.g., Id. at 3:7-17, 15:10-15.
`
`50. As shown, each of the inwardly projecting members 63 includes what
`
`would have been understood to be “a beaded portion,” according to claim 1 of the
`
`‘901 Patent. E.g., Id. at 15:10-15, Figs.3, 4, 9. The ‘901 Patent associates the
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1018, Page 23
`
`
`
`
`
`“beaded portions” with what would be well-known snap-fit features: “Each arm
`
`includes a bead 31 that snap fits with beads 27 on flanges 23 for a secure but
`
`releasable connection.” Ex. 1001 at 5:27-29. Price discloses just such snap-fit
`
`beads. For example, the angled portions (“beaded portions”) of the inwardly
`
`projecting members 63 of the jointer members 60 (which “snap onto”
`
`corresponding beaded portions of the side member) are indicated below on the
`
`annotated, excerpts from Figs. 3, 4, and 9 of Price. Ex. 1002 at 15:10-15.
`
`
`
`Figure
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
