IPR2015-01691, No. 1037-10 Exhibit - Petitioners Demonstrative Exhibits (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2016)

ALLSTEEL INC.
`(Petitioner)
`v.
`DIRTT ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS LTD.
`(Patent Owner)
`Case IPR2015-01691
`
`October 13, 2016
`
`1
`
`

`Summary of Grounds
`
`Claim 1: only independent claim; instituted on three separate grounds
`Claim 5: only dependent claim argued separately by Patent Owner
`
`(Institution Decision (Paper 10) at 23.)
`
`2
`
`

`Where We Are
`
`Obviousness Issue
`Is the prior art analogous?
`
`Are all elements taught by
`the prior art?
`
`Status
`
`Yes - Undisputed
`
`Yes - Undisputed
`
`Would a person of skill
`combine the prior art?
`
`Yes - Undisputed
`
`3
`
`

`The Prior Art Is Analogous
`
`Q: So Raith, EVH, Yu, and
`MacGregor, those references all
`relate to movable wall systems,
`correct?
`A: Yes.
`
`Q: And the Gosling patent also
`relates to movable wall systems,
`correct?
`A. Yes.
`
`(Ex. 1030 at 21:14-20)
`
`Reply (Paper 30) at 3
`
`5
`
`

`Uncontested Facts = Admissions
`
`“We consider Patent Owner to have admitted those
`aspects of these grounds of unpatentability that are
`uncontested by Patent Owner and are material facts.”
`b/e Aerospace, Inc., IPR2014-01510, 2016 WL 1082726, at *17 (Mar. 18, 2016)
`(citing 37 C.F.R 32.23(a).)
`
`“The patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for
`patentability not raised in the response will be deemed
`waived.” (Scheduling Order, Paper No. 11 at 2.)
`
`Reply (Paper 30) at 2
`
`7
`
`

`DIRTT Prosecution
`
`“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.”
`
`Petition (Paper 1) at 5; Exhibit 1012 at 103-104
`
`8
`
`

`Beaded Connection Amendments
`
`Reply (Paper 30) at 4; Exhibit 1012 at 41-42
`
`9
`
`

`Raith – Beaded Portions
`
`Patent Owner/Dix do not dispute that Raith teaches all of the beaded
`connection limitations.
`
`Petition (Paper 1) at 14
`
`10
`
`

`Patent Owner’s Only Missing-Element Argument for
`Raith
`
`Patent Owner Response (Paper 24) at ii
`
`11
`
`

`Claim 1 Remaining Elements
`
`1. A movable reconfigurable wall system comprising: a) at least one wall module having a front and rear surface and top,
`bottom, right side and left side edges, said at least one wall module having:i) a vertical end frame disposed adjacent to each
`of said right and left side edges, each vertical end frame having a first vertically extending flange and a spaced apart second
`vertically extending flange thereon, each of said first vertically extending flange and said second vertically extending flange
`having a beaded portion, the beaded portion on one of said first vertically extending flange or said second vertically
`extending flange extending toward the front surface of the wall module and the beaded portion on the other of said first
`vertically extending flange or said second vertically extending flange extending toward the rear surface of the wall module;
`ii) a plurality of horizontal stringers affixed between said vertical end frames at said right and left side edges; and
`iii) an aesthetic surface affixed to said stringers; and
`b) a removable connecting strip having a pair of spaced apart flexible arms, each arm having a beaded portion thereon, the
`beaded portion of one of said arms being adapted to connect releasably to the beaded portion of one of said first vertically
`extending flange or said second vertically extending flange on said vertical end frame and the beaded portion of the other of
`said arms being adapted to connect releasably to the beaded portion of 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 to hold one of
`said first vertically extending flange or said second vertically extending flange and said opposed vertically extending flange
`together, the beaded portions of said first vertically extending flange or said second vertically extending flange and said
`opposed vertically extending flange fitting inside the arms of said connecting strip to hold said first vertically extending flange
`or said second vertically extending flange and said opposed vertically extending flange together thereby releasably
`connecting said at least one wall module to the other of said second wall module, wall bracket, finishing trim or connection
`post.
`
`Reply (Paper 30) at 4-5
`
`12
`
`

`“Stringer” References
`
`EVH
`
`Yu
`
`MacGregor
`
`Patent Owner/Dix do not dispute that EVH, Yu, and MacGregor teach the
`stringer limitations.
`
`Reply (Paper 30) at 5
`
`13
`
`

`Patent Owner’s Expert
`
`Q. So your students, your senior design
`students, it would be well within their
`competency to design their own horizontal
`structural support to pair it with the
`connecting strip system of Raith, right?
`
`A. That's I believe what I said, yes.
`
`Q. So they could use something like Yu;
`they could use something like EVH; they
`could use something like MacGregor.
`But maybe more probable, they would just
`design their own horizontal structural
`support member to pair with the Raith
`connecting system, right?
`
`A. Right.
`
`Reply (Paper 30) at 12-14; Ex. 1030 at 54.
`
`14
`
`

`Patent Owner’s Statements
`
`Person of skill may have “modif[ied] Raith to incorporate the grooves shown
`in the distance channels of EVH . . . into the panels of the Raith system” but
`would not “further import the horizontal distance channels from EVH into the Raith
`system.” (Patent Owner Response (Paper 24) at 28.)
`
`Person of skill may have “modif[ied] Raith to incorporate the tiles and
`associated snap-fit type connections shown in Yu” but would not “substitute
`entirely new structural elements, such as the cross rails, from Yu into the Raith
`system.” (Patent Owner Response (Paper 24) at 41.)
`
`Person of skill may have “incorporate[d] the cover panels and associated
`connections described in MacGregor” but would not “substitute entirely new
`structural elements such as the cross members from MacGregor into the Raith
`system.” (Patent Owner Response (Paper 24) at 51.)
`
`16
`
`

`Patent Owner’s Statements
`
`Person of skill may have “modif[ied] Raith to incorporate the grooves shown in the
`distance channels of EVH . . . into the panels of the Raith system” but would not
`“further import the horizontal distance channels from EVH into the Raith
`system.” (Patent Owner Response (Paper 24) at 28.)
`
`Person of skill may have “modif[ied] Raith to incorporate the tiles and associated
`snap-fit type connections shown in Yu” but would not “substitute entirely new
`structural elements, such as the cross rails, from Yu into the Raith system.”
`(Patent Owner Response (Paper 24) at 41.)
`
`Person of skill may have “incorporate[d] the cover panels and associated
`connections described in MacGregor” but would not “substitute entirely new
`structural elements such as the cross members from MacGregor into the
`Raith system.” (Patent Owner Response (Paper 24) at 51.)
`
`17
`
`

`What Is Left?
`Obviousness Issue
`
`Is the prior art analogous?
`
`Are all elements taught by the prior art?
`
`Would a person of skill combine the prior
`art?
`
`Would a person of skill have combined the
`prior art in a manner that meets the
`disputed claims?
`
`Status
`
`Undisputed
`
`Undisputed
`
`Undisputed
`
`Reply (Paper 30) at 6-14
`
`18
`
`

`What Is Left?
`Obviousness Issue
`
`Is the prior art analogous?
`
`Are all elements taught by the prior art?
`
`Would a person of skill combine the prior
`art?
`
`Status
`
`Undisputed
`
`Undisputed
`
`Undisputed
`
`Would a person of skill have combined the
`prior art in a manner that meets the
`disputed claims?
`
`Yes
`
`Reply (Paper 30) at 6-14
`
`19
`
`

`Raith – Beaded Connection System
`
`Petition (Paper 1) at 14 20
`
`

`“variety of . . . partition systems”
`
`Petition (Paper 1) at 25
`
`22
`
`

`“Stringer” References – EVH, Yu, MacGregor
`
`EVH
`
`Yu
`
`MacGregor
`
`23
`
`

`Beaman: POSA Would Combine Raith & EVH
`
`“[A] person of skill would have found it readily
`achievable and desirable to use the distance
`channels of EVH to complete the securing of
`the aesthetic surface in the horizontal
`direction as Raith teaches the same
`mechanism for securing the aesthetic surface
`in the vertical direction. It would have been a
`simple matter to attach the distance channels
`of EVH to Raith’s vertical frame members
`(e.g., using well known fasteners).”
`(Beaman Decl., Ex. 1018 at ¶90; see also Petition (Paper 1) at 24-
`25.)
`
`24
`
`

`Beaman: POSA Would Combine Raith & Yu
`
`“[A] person of skill would have
`found it desirable and readily
`achievable to adapt the tile
`connection system of Yu for use in
`the Raith system, including to
`provide the benefit of secured tiles
`and the ability to hang furniture
`components to the system.”
`(Ex. 1018 at ¶138; Petition (Paper 1) at 37-
`38, 41.)
`
`25
`
`

`Beaman: POSA Would Combine Raith & MacGregor
`
`“The modified Raith-MacGregor system would combine
`the benefits of a panel system that is connectable using
`removable connector strips with a panel system having
`stringers for connecting aesthetic tiles and for
`supporting modular accessory units. This combination
`would be . . . a simple matter of securing mechanical
`components together using well known techniques.”
`(Ex. 1018 at ¶170.)
`
`Petition (Paper 1) at 47; Exhibit 1018 at ¶170
`
`26
`
`

`Dix
`
`Q. So your students, your senior design
`students, it would be well within their
`competency to design their own horizontal
`structural support to pair it with the
`connecting strip system of Raith, right?
`
`A. That's I believe what I said, yes.
`
`Q. So they could use something like Yu;
`they could use something like EVH; they
`could use something like MacGregor.
`But maybe more probable, they would just
`design their own horizontal structural
`support member to pair with the Raith
`connecting system, right?
`
`A. Right.
`
`Reply (Paper 30) at 12-14
`
`27
`
`

`Patent Owner’s Flawed Analysis
`
`►Bodily incorporation
`►“Raith manufacturing environment”
`►Limits creativity of a person of skill
`►Improper narrow interpretation of
`Petition/Beaman
`
`Reply (Paper 30) at 6-14
`
`28
`
`

`Law of Bodily Incorporation
`
`“The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
`references would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`not whether one reference may be bodily incorporated into the
`structure of another reference as Patent Owner contends.” (Institution
`Decision (Paper 10) at 15.) (citing Keller.)
`
`“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
`reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
`primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be
`expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test
`is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested
`to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
`(C.C.P.A. 1981)
`
`Reply (Paper 30) at 7
`
`30
`
`

`Dix’s Incorrect Bodily Incorporation Analysis
`
`“If chair rail assembly 263 or the
`base structure for glass panel
`assembly 22 in Raith were replaced
`with distance channel 11 from EVH,
`there would be a gap between the
`bottom of distance channel 11 and
`the floor. An additional component or
`components would be required to
`cover that gap. A person of skill at
`the time of the invention would have
`understood that such a modification
`to Raith would be undesirable . . . .”
`(Ex. 2009, Dix Declaration ¶ 19;
`see also id. ¶¶ 24, 28.)
`
`31
`
`

`Dix’s Incorrect Bodily Incorporation Analysis
`
`Same flawed analysis for Raith + Yu and Raith + MacGregor
`
`Reply (Paper 30) at 5
`
`32
`
`

`Dix’s Incorrect Bodily Incorporation Analysis
`
`Q. So what you're doing in your analysis
`is you're looking, for example, at a
`physical embodiment of the Raith
`reference, right? And then you're looking
`at a physical embodiment of the EVH
`reference, for example, and you're
`looking at how you would take the
`physical structures of EVH and
`potentially put them into Raith and
`analyzing to what extent a person of
`ordinary skill would do that. That's the
`analysis, right?
`
`A. That's correct.
`
`Reply (Paper 30) at 7-8; Ex. 1030 at 83; see also id. at 82
`
`33
`
`

`Bodily Incorporation = Physical Incorporation
`
`Patent Owner: “only components that can be
`‘physically incorporated’ into that structure [of the
`claimed invention] can possibly satisfy claim 1 of the
`ʼ901 patent.” (Patent Owner Reply (Paper 41) at 4)
`
`Federal Circuit: “a determination of obviousness
`based on teachings from multiple references does not
`require an actual, physical substitution of
`elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`(emphasis added). (Reply (Paper 30) at 7)
`
`34
`
`

`“Raith Manufacturing Environment”
`
`“My answers . . . [are] in the
`context of Raith as primary
`reference and the person of
`ordinary skill in the art relying on
`Raith as a primary reference and
`being in the Raith manufacturing
`environment.”
`(Dix Dep., Ex. 1030 at 129.)
`
`Reply (Paper 30) at 8
`
`36
`
`

`“Primary reference to Raith”
`
`Q. And is the analysis reflected in your
`declaration here limited to analyzing what a
`person of skill would do within the confines of
`the principles of the Raith system?
`
`THE WITNESS: That was the way I
`understood the object of our -- of "our"
`meaning my report, to analyze the operations
`or the decisions of one of ordinary skill in the
`art with primary reference to Raith and,
`secondarily, reference to all the other patents.
`That's the way I proceeded, yes.
`
`(Dix Dep., Ex. 1030 at 154:12-22 (objection omitted).)
`
`37
`
`

`“Company’s Product Line”
`
`(Dix Decl., Ex. 2009 at ¶ 12.)
`
`38
`
`

`Person of Skill Is Not a Specific Person
`
`“The ‘person of ordinary skill in the art’ is a theoretical
`construct used in determining obviousness under
`§103, and is not descriptive of some particular
`individual.”
`
`Endress + Hauser, Inc. v. Hawk Measurement Sys. Pty. Ltd.,
`122 F.3d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
`
`39
`
`

`Raith Manufacturing Environment
`
`(Raith, Ex. 1003, Abstract; see also Petition (Paper
`1) at 11; Patent Owner Response (Paper 24))
`40
`
`

`Raith Manufacturing Environment
`
`“[W]hether roll formed or
`otherwise, the relatively few
`modular components fit together
`in an almost endless variety of
`high or low screens or full height
`partitions.”
`(Raith, Ex. 1003 at 16:40-45; see also
`Patent Owner Prelim. Response (Paper
`9) at 27)
`
`41
`
`

`Teaching of alternatives ≠ teaching away
`
`“A reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a
`general preference for an alternative invention but does not
`‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into
`the invention claimed.”
`
`(Institution Decision (Paper 10) at 11 (citing Fulton).)
`“[T]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative
`does not constitute a teaching away from any of these
`alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize,
`discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….”
`In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200-01, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1145-46 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`42
`
`

`Dix Adds Improper Constraints on POSA’s Creativity
`
`Dix adds that POSA:
`►is in “an entry level position”
`►is “working . . . in an apprentice-like position”
`►“goes about his or her work by solving problems given to him or her by
`his superiors”
`►“tends to make modifications and propose solutions only to the extent
`necessary to solve the problem he or she has been given or to
`accomplish the goal that he or she has set out to achieve.”
`(Dix Decl., Ex. 2009 at ¶ 11.)
`
`44
`
`

`POSA not an automaton
`
`“A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary
`creativity, not an automaton.”
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
`
`“[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the
`teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”
`Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
`
`“The rationale of KSR does not support [patentee’s] theory that a person
`of ordinary skill can only perform combinations of a puzzle element A
`with a perfectly fitting puzzle element B. To the contrary, KSR instructs
`that the obviousness inquiry requires a flexible approach.”
`ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 2016 WL 5219886, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 22, 2016).
`
`45
`
`

`Dix
`
`Q. Okay. What are some of the
`ideas that come to mind for how --
`creative ideas your students might
`come up with for horizontal
`structural members to use with the
`cross-rail system of Raith?
`
`A. We're not talking about
`creative ideas; we're just talking
`about different geometries
`
`(Dix Dep., Ex. 1030 at 53.)
`
`46
`
`

`Dix
`
`THE WITNESS: I think the
`students are a bit more creative
`than being restricted to the details
`of a specific cross-rail system,
`whether it’s Yu or Rozier or EVH.
`
`(Dix Dep., Ex. 1030 at 53.)
`
`47
`
`

`Petitioner’s Contentions
`
`“It would have been obvious to combine the glass wall panel design of
`EVH with the modular structural components of Raith.” (Beaman Decl.,
`Ex. 1018 ¶ 67 .)
`
`“Accordingly, a person of skill would have found it desirable and readily
`achievable to adapt the tile connection system of Yu for use in the Raith
`system, including to provide the benefit of secured tiles and the ability to
`hang furniture components to the system.” (Beaman Decl., Ex. 1018 ¶
`138.)
`
`“In my opinion, a person of skill would have found it feasible and
`desirable to adapt the cross members taught in MacGregor for use in
`the Raith system.” (Beaman Decl., Ex. 1018 ¶ 178.)
`
`49
`
`

`Obviousness Law Again
`
`“The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
`references would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`not whether one reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure
`of another reference as Patent Owner contends.” (Institution Decision
`(Paper 10) at 15.) (citing Keller.)
`
`50
`
`

`The Board
`
`The Board
`
`IPRZEJI 5-fl}16‘)|
`|’alcnt 14.(J24.‘J£}1 B2
`
`‘:Llunl0\\11cr argues ihat Raith icachcs a\\'a_\' from using thu
`hu|'i'/unml s1r1|ctLLrusdi:;c1oc;cd in YLL Prelim. Resp. 34.
`In pamis:u]=|r__ |"::lcm
`(lunar zlrguus Ihul |{::i|I1tL'.;IchL:x using t‘c\\'urpzI1'lxtu cuuslrucl .'1p:1n::|. and
`t1u:rul‘oru. u-auld hem: discmlmgud a person of nrdin:n'_\' skill in the url I‘m1n
`using Yu‘s Imt'i'.r.m1u|1 :atrLI.clurc:;_ |"rc]1'n1. Resp. 3-I-35. We lmvc addrcswcd
`this ar5_:u1ncn1 in Ihu context ufthn: cmnhzmliinnl 0|’ Railh and 1-IVII above.
`annl for silnilzlr rn:zI.\‘u:1.\‘. the argument is nnl pcrxu; "\1: because the rcstllling
`CnIl1T'Ji1'|{Ili:Jl1 uould 1'|.‘5LI" in 2| suhsululinn nfnm:l|1ing for :1n::1ht;r. nut
`I1UCCH5ElF'iI_\' lhc zaddilicm Lsfirzlrls.
`Palunl [)\\'nc1" ulsu ::I'g.u.cR [hat il unuld not have been uhvious to add
`..:|... .|.......-|..---I. .rn.:.|.L.-
`- .. ..
`
`u..-. .
`
`J
`
`Colltends. In re Keller. 642 F.2d 413. 425 (CCPA 1981).
`
`incurpnmn.-d imu lhc :ilfL|.1.‘lllTI.‘ nt'unmh<:r n:I':.‘rcn::J.' us Pzllcnl (‘.*\\11ur
`
`mlattrrlds m :2‘ rm'.&.-r_ (.42 F.3d 4 I3. 425 ((‘.:’..'|’.'\ 19.21 1.—
`
`51
`
`

`Beaman Deposition
`
`Beaman Deposition
`
`JOSEPH J. BEPLMAN.
`
`JR-r Ph.D.
`
`solxd panels of Raith.
`
`HY MR. NYDEGGER:
`
`Q. And in order to do that. would a person of
`
`|'.'Sli K\']\\|1!l'|g - '.\'n'4I|dn'In.|n:
`
`RT‘:‘.‘.fuj-‘)<!itJ
`
`HMTTEXHHHFIMBJM
`H’R2UI5-0]fi9I
`
`52
`
`

`Genzyme
`
`“The purpose of the trial in an inter partes review
`proceeding is to give the parties an opportunity to
`build a record by introducing evidence—not simply to
`weigh evidence of which the Board is already aware.”
`
`Genzyme Therapeutic Prod. Ltd. P'ship v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc.,
`825 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`53
`
`

`What Is Left?
`Obviousness Issue
`
`Is the prior art analogous?
`
`Are all elements taught by the prior art?
`
`Would a person of skill combine the prior
`art?
`
`Status
`Undisputed
`
`Undisputed
`
`Undisputed
`
`Would a person of skill have combined
`the prior art in a manner that meets the
`disputed claims?
`
`Yes
`
`54
`
`

`Additional Issues
`
`►Secondary Considerations
`►Claim 5
`
`55
`
`

`Additional Issues
`
`►Secondary Considerations
`►Claim 5
`
`56
`
`

`Secondary Considerations - Commercial Success
`
`“It is well established that absolute
`sales numbers without market share
`data does not establish commercial
`success.”
`
`IPR2014-01103, Paper No. 50 at 26 (Medley, J.)
`(citing In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996).)
`
`57
`
`

`Gosling Has “Not a Clue” About Market Share
`
`(Ex. 1031 at 57-59.)
`
`58
`
`

`Commercial Success
`
`Demonstrating commercial success requires “proof
`‘that the sales were a direct result of the unique
`characteristics of the claimed invention.”
`In re DBC, 545 F.3d 1373, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`If “success is due to an element in the prior art, no
`nexus exists.”
`Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`59
`
`

`Product Features In Prior Art - EVH
`
`Reply (Paper 30) at 22; Ex. 1004 at 242-243
`
`60
`
`

`Same Features Contribute to Dirtt’s wall system
`
` Variable sized prefabricated panels
` Walls that allow for passthrough components
` Removable by means of specially designed
`connecting strips
` Wall modules can be adjusted to meet different
`ceiling heights
` Modules can be stacked on top of each other
` Modules accommodate both vertical and horizontal
`shapes, can accommodate both single or double
`glazed glass, as well as a variety of blinds or
`privacy screens
` Lower glide system that allows for adjustability
`
` Panels that can be attached to drywall with a
`telescoping connector
` Skin of DIRTT's walls is manufactured from a
`variety of materials
` Capacity to allow for pocket doors, pivot doors and
`hinged doors
` Accommodate three-inch thick flat TVs within solid
`panels
` Allows for an easy and clean installation
` Walls allow for hanging componentry, work
`surfaces, overheads, light accessories and the like
` Allow for radius corners and radius panels
`
`Reply (Paper 30) at 22; Ex. 1031 at 74-78; Ex. 1004 at 242-243
`
`61
`
`

`Secondary Considerations – Praise By Others
`
`“For objective evidence to be accorded substantial
`weight, its proponent must establish a nexus
`between the evidence and the merits of the claimed
`invention.”
`
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`
`62
`
`

`Gosling’s Award In Canada
`
`►No indication that award committee ever saw ‘901 patent
`►No indication that committee compared Patent Owner’s product to
`‘901 patent
`►No evidence establishing a nexus between the award and the
`‘901 patent.
`
`Reply (Paper 30) at 22; Ex. 1031 at 97-98
`
`63
`
`

`Johnson County Hearsay
`
`►Patent Owner does not cite Gosling’s declaration or the Johnson
`County YouTube Video [Exs. 2004 & 2005] “to establish that there
`were no other movable wall systems with horizontal aesthetic tiles and
`horizontal stringers in the market pre-2004.” (Patent Owner
`Opposition (Paper 39) at 7-8.)
`
`►Patent Owner admits that this evidence merely “show[s] the
`perceptions and reactions of customers with whom Gosling interacted”
`in support of the idea that “customers perceived that DIRTT’s
`patented product met a need that had not been met for them by other
`products they had encountered.” (Patent Owner Opposition (Paper
`No. 39) at 7.)
`
`64
`
`

`Additional Issues
`
`►Secondary Considerations
`►Claim 5
`
`65
`
`

`Claim 5 is Invalid
`
`“Yu broadly discloses “protrusions” on the cross
`members in the form of connectors 190-5 and “tile
`clips” on the cover pads, or tiles, in the form of beads
`188 on the cover pads… the connectors 190-5
`“protrude” and the beads 188 “clip” the tiles on the
`connectors 190-5”
`
`Petition (Paper 1) at 38; see, also, Ex. 1018 at ¶ 152
`
`(Petition (Paper
`1) at 35.)
`
`66
`
`

`Claim 5 is Invalid
`
`(Petition (Paper 1) at 42-43.)
`
`► “Each cross rail 200 also includes three
`cover pad mounting brackets 189-5
`mounted thereto for connection of cover
`pads…the mounting brackets 189-5
`include resilient U-shaped connectors 190-
`5 for connection of cover pads…”
`
`(Ex. 1005 at 25:27-35.)
`
`► Yu discloses removable panel covers or
`tiles…It is also clear that the cross rails and
`mounting brackets of Yu serve to secure
`cover tiles to both the front and rear
`surfaces of the box beam.
`
`(Ex. 1018 at ¶ 148.)
`
`67
`
`

`Patent Owner’s Limited Analysis
`
`“Petition relies solely on paragraphs 150-153
`of the Beaman declaration…But that portion
`of Yu discloses the connection of a cover tile
`23-4 to the upright 19-4…”
`
`(Patent Owner Response (Paper 24) at 48.)
`
`Patent Owner ignores or mischaracterizes
`Petitioner's evidence.
`
`68
`
`

`Patent Owner’s Improper Interpretation of Beaman
`
`“Dr. Beaman’s declaration also opines that the
`requires of claim 5 are taught [in another
`passage of Yu]…But those portions of Yu
`disclose attaching a cover panel 23-1 using
`an elongate spring clip 135′ on the horizontal
`upper cross rail 42-1…that portion of Yu does
`not teach a “plurality of horizontal stringers”
`wherein “each said stringer” includes one or
`more protrusions for affixing tiles.”
`
`(Patent Owner Response (Paper 24) at 48.)
`
`Mischaracterized: partial reading of Dr.
`Beaman’s declaration
`
`69
`
`

`Patent Owner’s Improper Interpretation of Beaman
`
`Cross-rail 42-1 cited as additional
`evidence of Yu’s teachings.
`
`(Ex. 1018 at ¶ 152.)
`
`70
`
`

`Duplication of Cross-Rail Acknowledged by Dix
`
`Dr. Dix acknowledges that upper cross-
`rail 42-1 could be duplicated.
`
`(Ex. 1030 at
`140:3-8.)
`
`71
`
`

`Evidence Ignored By Patent Owner: Alternate Theory
`
`“To the extent the beads 188 are more
`properly construed as “protrusions” according
`to claim 5 and the connectors 190-5 are more
`properly construed as “connectors” according
`to claim 5, it would have been obvious to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art to switch the
`locations of these complementary fastening
`components as a matter of mere design
`choice...”
`
`(Petition (Paper 1) at 38 (emphasis added);
`see also, Ex. 1008 at ¶ 153.)
`
`72
`
`

`Claim Construction
`
`73
`
`

`“horizontal stringer"
`
`1. A movable reconfigurable wall system comprising: a) at least one wall module having a front and rear surface and top,
`bottom, right side and left side edges, said at least one wall module having:i) a vertical end frame disposed adjacent to each
`of said right and left side edges, each vertical end frame having a first vertically extending flange and a spaced apart second
`vertically extending flange thereon, each of said first vertically extending flange and said second vertically extending flange
`having a beaded portion, the beaded portion on one of said first vertically extending flange or said second vertically
`extending flange extending toward the front surface of the wall module and the beaded portion on the other of said first
`vertically extending flange or said second vertically extending flange extending toward the rear surface of the wall module;
`ii) a plurality of horizontal stringers affixed between said vertical end frames at said right and left side edges; and
`iii) an aesthetic surface affixed to said stringers; and
`b) a removable connecting strip having a pair of spaced apart flexible arms, each arm having a beaded portion thereon, the
`beaded portion of one of said arms being adapted to connect releasably to the beaded portion of one of said first vertically
`extending flange or said second vertically extending flange on said vertical end frame and the beaded portion of the other of
`said arms being adapted to connect releasably to the beaded portion of 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 to hold one of
`said first vertically extending flange or said second vertically extending flange and said opposed vertically extending flange
`together, the beaded portions of said first vertically extending flange or said second vertically extending flange and said
`opposed vertically extending flange fitting inside the arms of said connecting strip to hold said first vertically extending flange
`or said second vertically extending flange and said opposed vertically extending flange together thereby releasably
`connecting said at least one wall module to the other of said second wall module, wall bracket, finishing trim or connection
`post.
`
`74
`
`

`Board’s Construction
`
`“[T]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a
`horizontal string is a horizontal structural support.”
`(Institution Decision (Paper 10) at 8.)
`
`75
`
`

`Board’s Construction
`
`“[T]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a
`horizontal string is a horizontal structural support.”
`(Institution Decision (Paper 10) at 8.)
`
`Compelled by Intrinsic Evidence:
` Stringers are used “anywhere structure is required. For
`example, the lowest stringer 8a may not include
`cantilever channel portion 41.” ‘901 patent at 4:58-61
`(emphasis added)
`
`76
`
`

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

Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge

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.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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

Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

Supplemental Search

Search for PTAB Motions

PTAB Analytics

TTAB Analytics

Basic Search

Filters

Party Search

Advanced

Selected Courts

Recently Selected Courts

Find PTAB Decisions

PTAB Analytics

Special PTAB Alerts

Orange Book

Directly Search Federal Courts

Search Trademark ...

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

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

Still Working On It

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

This document could not be displayed.

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.

One Moment Please

Your document is on its way!

Sealed Document

We are redirecting youto a mobile optimized page.

Document Unreadable or Corrupt

We are unable to display this document.

STEP 2 of 2

Choose your membership type

Flat-Fee

Pay-As-You-Go

Add your payment information

Login or Join

Enter your corporate Email

Thousands of your peers are saving time and gaining a competitive advantage with Docket Alarm.

Join Docket Alarm to perform smarter legal research.

Download this document and millions of others instantly with a Docket Alarm membership.

Join Docket Alarm and start performing smarter legal research.

Start tracking this docket instantly with a Docket Alarm membership.

Join thousands of your peers and start performing smarter legal research.

STEP 1 of 2

Millions of Documents | 15 Seconds to Signup

Hi !

Welcome to Docket Alarm

Welcome to Docket Alarm!

Explore Litigation Insights andManage Your Cases

Reset Password

What is PACER?

Why do I need it?

What will I be charged?

Do other courts have fees?

Basic Free Access

Welcome

Thank you

Check Firm Account

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

Explore Litigation Insights and
Manage Your Cases