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

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`
`CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES and requirements ................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Party 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 ............. 2
`
`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 ................ 8
`
`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 .................. 8
`
`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 ...................... 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`How the Challenged Claims Are to be Construed ...................... 9
`
`The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................... 10
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5): Challenge and Support ....................... 10
`
`V.
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................... 10
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY ................................... 11
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 6, 7, 11, 13, and 15-18 are obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Raith and EVH ............................................. 11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Overview of Raith ..................................................................... 11
`
`Overview of EVH ..................................................................... 18
`
`Combination of Raith and EVH. ............................................... 24
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, and 9 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Raith (Ex. 1003) and Yu (Ex. 1005) ............................. 33
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of Yu. ........................................................................ 33
`
`Combination of Raith and Yu. .................................................. 37
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 4, 10, 19-23 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over Raith (Ex. 1003) and MacGregor (Ex. 1006) .................. 44
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of MacGregor. .......................................................... 44
`
`Combination of Raith and MacGregor. .................................... 46
`
`D. Ground 4: Claim 25 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over
`Raith, MacGregor, and Rozier. ........................................................... 52
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of Rozier ................................................................... 52
`
`Combination of Raith, MacGregor, and Rozier. ....................... 53
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5: Claim 14 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`
`Raith, EVH, and Dixon. ...................................................................... 55
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Overview of EVH. .................................................................... 55
`
`Overview of Dixon.................................................................... 56
`
`Combination of Raith, EVH, and Dixon ................................... 58
`
`F.
`
`The Grounds Asserted in this Petition Are Not Redundant ................ 58
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 59
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`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) .................................................................... 19, 20
`
`Ex Parte Nancy Lee Carter,
`APL 2008-5682, 2009 WL 524959 (Feb. 27, 2009) ........................................... 39
`
`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) ........................................................................... 39
`
`In re Chu,
`66 F.3d 292 (Fed.Cir. 1995) .................................................................................. 4
`
`In re Gazda,
`219 F.2d 449 (CCPA 1955) ........................................................................... 38, 39
`
`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) ................................................................................................... 44
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(3) ................................................................................................... 44
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................... 8, 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................................... 4, 9
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`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. §§ 311-319 ................................................................................................. 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 11
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.11 (2002) ............................................................................................ 19
`
`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)(3)-(4) .......................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................. 9
`
`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) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2) ...................................................................................... 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5) .............................................................................. 10, 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 168 ........................................................................................................ 10
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Google Inc. v. Visual Real Estate, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01338, Paper 3 (PTAB Sept. 2, 2014) ................................................. 29
`
`Amneal Pharms., LLC v. Supernus Pharms., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00368, Paper 6 (PTAB Dec. 17, 2013) ................................................ 61
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`MPEP § 103(III) (2001) ........................................................................................... 19
`
`MPEP § 211.05 ........................................................................................................... 4
`
`MPEP § 803.2 ............................................................................................................ 4
`
`MPEP § 2144 ........................................................................................................... 38
`
`MPEP § 2144.04.VI.A ............................................................................................. 41
`
`MPEP § 2173.05(h) .................................................................................................... 4
`
`MPEP § 2181(I)(A) .................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`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 Publication 2003/0154673 (“MacGregor”)
`
`Exhibit 1007:
`
`U.S. Patent 5,881,979 (“Rozier”)
`
`U.S. Patent 4,277,920 (“Dixon”)
`Exhibit 1008:
`
`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.
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`
`Exhibit 1009:
`
`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. 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.
`
`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
`viii
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`
`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, 4-11, 13-
`
`23, and 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 Party 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`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. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4): Counsel and Service Information
`
`Petitioner designates the following counsel at the addresses shown below
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`II. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTIES REVIEW
`
`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, $200 excess claim fee, $2,400 post-institution
`
`excess claims fee (total of $25,600), 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
`
`
`Prosecution of the ’901 Patent
`
`B.
`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 the Rudduck 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
`
`among other limitations “beaded” portions and argued 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 has received a notice of allowance: (1)
`
`14/032,931 filed on September 20, 2013 (’931 reissue application) (Ex. 1015); (2)
`
`14/305,819 filed on June 16, 2014; and (3) 14/681,874 filed on April 8, 2015.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 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 that presented in this Petition, including U.S. Patent 4,493,172
`
`(“Jones”) (Ex. 1011), which has been relied upon by the Patent Office for the
`
`beaded connector and flange limitations of claim 1. Ex. 1015 at 391-405.
`
`“Connector” Excerpt from
`Rudduck
`
`
`
`
`
`“Connector” Excerpt from
`’901 Patent
`
`
`
`“Connector” Excerpt
`from Jones
`
`Raith’s “connector strip” (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 this Petition even
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`better disclose the claims of the ’901 patent. For example, DIRTT’s primary
`
`arguments for patentability were that Rudduck lacks beaded connectors for
`
`connecting vertically extending flanges on separate end frames. Ex. 1012 at 51.
`
`Raith, which forms the basis for all grounds addressed in this Petition,
`
`clearly discloses beaded, snap on connectors for connecting flanges on separate
`
`end frames. Ex. 1008 at 15:10-15. For example, DIRTT argued claim 1 addresses a
`
`“zipper” connector and that feature distinguishes claim 1 from Rudduck. Ex. 1012
`
`at 104. Raith, in fact, specifically describes its connectors as operating in a “zipper-
`
`like fashion.” Ex. 1003 at 8:49-54. DIRTT also argued claim 1 is patentable over
`
`Rudduck because Rudduck does not disclose that “the vertically extending flanges
`
`connected together are on separate end frames.” Ex. 1012 at 51. Again, Raith
`
`discloses such features. E.g., Ex. 1003 at 8:38-42.
`
`DIRTT has even recognized that Raith discloses such features. In particular,
`
`while prosecution was still open for the ’901 patent, DIRTT conceded to a
`
`different Examiner during prosecution of a different patent family (U.S. App.
`
`12/963,948, Ex. 1025) that Raith discloses connector strips for connecting the
`
`flanges of separate wall panels, but did not raise the existence of Raith or DIRTT’s
`
`characterization of Raith to the Examiner for the ’901 patent. Ex. 1025 at 141-142.
`
`According to DIRTT, “Raith discloses panels that have a folded flange
`
`configuration . . . . The j-shape flanges 16 of adjacent panels then may be readily
`
`7
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`joined together by connector strips 70 preferably on both sides of the panels.” Ex.
`
`1025 at 141-142.
`
`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, 4-11, 13-23, and 25
`
`of the ’901 patent based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 and the prior art references set forth in
`
`the following table 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.
`
`Claims
`
`References
`
`1, 6, 7, 11, 13,
`
`U.S. Patent 4,438,614 (“Raith”) (Ex. 1003); and
`
`15-18
`
`Publicly available contents of the application file
`
`for U.S. 10/027,872 (“EVH”) (Ex. 1004)
`
`2.
`
`1, 4, 5, 8, 9
`
`Raith (Ex. 1003); and
`
`U.S. Patent 6,161,347 (“Yu”) (Ex. 1005)
`
`3.
`
`1, 4, 10, 19-23
`
`Raith (Ex. 1003); and
`
`U.S. Patent Publication 2003/0154673
`
`(“MacGregor”) (Ex. 1006)
`
`4.
`
`25
`
`Raith (Ex. 1003);
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`
`MacGregor (Ex. 1006); and
`
`5.
`
`14
`
`Rozier (Ex. 1007)
`
`Raith (Ex. 1003);
`
`EVH (Ex. 1004); and
`
`U.S. Patent 4,277,920 (“Dixon”) (Ex. 1008)
`
`B.
`
`1.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`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.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5): Challenge and Support
`
`C.
`A detailed explanation of how construed claims 1, 4-11, 13-23, and 25 are
`
`unpatentable is provided in Section 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).
`
`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
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`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, 4-11, 13-23, and
`
`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, 6, 7, 11, 13, and 15-18 are obvious under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Raith and EVH
`
`None of Raith, EVH or the cited combination was considered by the
`
`Examiner during prosecution of the ’901 patent.
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Raith
`
`Raith issued on March 27, 1984 and is prior art to the ’901 patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b). Ex. 1003. Similar to the ’901 patent, Raith relates to demountable
`
`interior partition systems that may be assembled into a variety of walls. E.g., Ex.
`
`1003 at Abstract, Summary. Raith discloses “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
`
`11
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`system with accessory supporting capabilities.” Id. at 1:10-17. Raith provides “a
`
`partition system where the panels or components may be held together solely by
`
`multi-purpose plastic strips.” Id. at 3:37-38. Raith is 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, ¶ 37.
`
`Claim 1 is the only independent claim of the ’901 patent. Raith expressly
`
`discloses nearly every feature of claim 1, as summarized in the table below and
`
`explained further in the discussion that follows.
`
`’901 Claim Limitation
`
`Exemplary components from Raith
`
`“wall module”
`
`Glass panel assemblies 222,223
`
`“vertical end frames”
`
`Frame panels 233
`
`“vertically extending flange[s]”
`
`J-shaped flanges of mounting edges 350
`
`“connecting strip”
`
`Elongated plastic connector strips 70
`
`Raith discloses glass panel assemblies that include frame panels. E.g., id. at
`
`13:42-49, Figs. 13, 17. The vertical frame panels have mounting edges that form J-
`
`shaped flanges. E.g., id. at 8:38-63; 13:18-49; Figs. 12,13,16,17; Ex. 1018, ¶ 37.
`
`Raith also discloses elongated plastic connector strips for quickly and easily
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901
`Filed August 7, 2015
`
`fastening the mounting edges of adjacent structural components together. E.g., Ex.
`
`1003 at 3:21-25; Figs. 12,17.
`
`Whether Raith is addressing solid panel assemblies, glass panel assemblies,
`
`or other structural components, the J-shape flanges are generally described in a
`
`similar fashion. See generally Ex. 1003; see also, e.g., Ex. 1003 at 2:16-31; Ex.
`
`1018, ¶ 36-38. For a particular panel assembly, each mounting edge includes two
`
`J-shaped flanges. Each flange includes a terminal portion that is an outwardly
`
`turned edge and an intermediate portion which is the straight part from which the
`
`outwardly turned edge extends. E.g., Ex. 1003 at 6:4-13; Fig. 12. In the same
`
`manner as the beaded portions recited in claim 1 and described in the ’901 Patent
`
`(e.g., Ex. 1001, Fig. 29), the intermediate and terminal portions of one J-shaped
`
`flange extend “toward the front surface” of the panel assembly and the
`
`intermediate and terminal portions of the other J-shaped flange extend “toward the
`
`rear surface” of the panel assembly. Ex. 1003 at 5:63-67; 6:15-20; 7:61-8:5; 13:42-
`
`49; Figs. 12,17.
`
`The annotated excerpts from Figs. 12 and 17 below illustrate various
`
`“beaded portions” disclosed by Raith, as understood by a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. Ex. 1018, ¶ 38.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No. [Unassigned]
`Petition For Inter Part