`
`Paper No. ____
`Filed: August 29, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01359
`U.S. Patent 8,909,094
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1
`
`THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED UNDER 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a)............................................................................................................4
`
`III.
`
`TECHNOLOGICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................10
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The ’094 Patent ...................................................................................10
`
`Suzuki..................................................................................................21
`
`Ikesue...................................................................................................23
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL ...............................................................24
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................24
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`“A toner supply container”..................................................................25
`
`“a rotational force receiving portion …” ............................................26
`
`“displacing force receiving portion …” and “projecting
`portion …”...........................................................................................29
`
`“configured and positioned to receive a rotational drive
`force …”..............................................................................................31
`
`VI.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................35
`
`VII. SUZUKI AND IKESUE DO NOT RENDER OBVIOUS ANY
`OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS .............................................................36
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner Fails to Show that Suzuki, In View of Ikesue,
`Discloses or Suggests a Coupling Portion “Configured
`and Positioned to Receive a Rotational Drive Force”.........................36
`
`Petitioner Fails to Show that Suzuki, In View of Ikesue,
`Discloses or Suggests the “Rotational Force Receiving
`Portion” Required by Claim 1.............................................................41
`
`Petitioner Fails to Show that Suzuki, In View of Ikesue,
`Discloses or Suggests an “Engaging Portion” or a
`
`ii
`
`
`
`“Displacing Force Receiving Portion” or “Projecting
`Portion” Displaceable with the Alleged “Supporting
`Portion”................................................................................................44
`
`D.
`
`Petitioner Fails to Show that Suzuki and Ikesue Disclose
`or Suggest All the Limitations of Claims that Depend
`from Claim 1 .......................................................................................49
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................51
`
`iii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .....................................................................33
`
`Cuozzo Speed. Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016)...............................................................................4, 25
`
`Ex parte Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .....................................................................29
`
`Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc.,
`725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .....................................................................50
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966)...........................................................................................35
`
`Hartness Int’l Inc. v. Simplimatic Eng’g Co.,
`819 F.2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .....................................................................49
`
`In re Giannelli,
`739 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................ 28, 33, 38
`
`In re Man Machine Interface Techs. LLC,
`822 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 25, 33
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007).......................................................................................35
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .....................................................................25
`
`Straight Path IP Grp., Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O.,
`806 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .....................................................................32
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................32
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................. 2, 3, 4, 8, 35
`
`iv
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)...............................................................................................4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) .....................................................................................................4
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).................................................................................... 35, 48, 50
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..............................................................................................25
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)..........................................................................................35
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)..........................................................................................35
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).................................................................................................4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b) ................................................................................................4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)...........................................................................................3, 35
`
`P.T.A.B.
`Conopco, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`IPR2014-00506, Paper 25 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2014)......................................6
`
`Conopco, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`IPR2014-00628, Paper 21 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2014).......................................8
`
`Ex parte Ahlfeld,
`Appeal 2012-006205, 2015 WL 6774437 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2015) ............32
`
`Ex parte Goodrich,
`Appeal 2009-009437, 2010 WL 3441066 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2010) ............50
`
`Ex parte Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`Appeal No. 2006-0790, 2006 WL 1665623 (B.P.A.I. May 16, 2006)..........29
`
`Ex parte Lee,
`Appeal 2013-009889, 2015 WL 5719912 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 22, 2015)...........33
`
`Ex parte Lin,
`Appeal 2011-010005, 2015 WL 2063245 (P.T.A.B. May 1, 2015)..............33
`
`v
`
`
`
`Ex parte Murata,
`Appeal 2013-007289, 2015 WL 4628749 (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2015) ............50
`
`Ex parte Tombroff,
`Appeal 2012-010047, 2015 WL 779583 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2015)..............33
`
`General Elec. Co. v. TAS Energy Inc.,
`IPR2014-00163, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. May 13, 2014) ....................... 36, 48, 50
`
`General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Inc.,
`IPR2015-01954, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2016)..........................................1
`
`General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Inc.,
`IPR2015-01954, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. May 19, 2016) ......................................1
`
`Great West Cas. Co. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`IPR2016-00453, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. June 9, 2016) ....................................5, 8
`
`NVIDIA Corp. v. Samsung Elec. Co.,
`IPR2016-00134, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. May 4, 2016) ............................. 3, 5, 8, 9
`
`Roche Molecular Sys., Inc. v. Illumina, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01091, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2015).......................................8
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP,
`IPR2015-00118, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2015) .......................................6
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`IPR2012-00041, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2013) ....................................35
`
`Travelocity.com L.P. v. Cronos Techs., LLC,
`CBM2015-00047, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. June 15, 2015) .....................................6
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01359
`U.S. Patent No. 8,909,094
`
`Canon Kabushiki Kaisha1
`
`(“Patent Owner”)
`
`respectfully submits this
`
`preliminary response to the petition of General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
`
`(“Petitioner”) seeking inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1, 7-9, and 29 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,909,094 (“the ’094 patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This is not Petitioner’s first attempt at challenging claims 1, 7-9, and 29 of
`
`the ’094 patent. Previously, on September 25, 2015, in IPR2015-01954, Petitioner
`
`alleged claims 1, 7-9, 11, 16-18, 29, and 38 of the ’094 patent were unpatentable
`
`over U.S. Patent No. 5,903,806 (“Matsuoka”).
`
`That previous petition was
`
`supported by the declaration of Dr. Brian Springett, the same declarant who
`
`submitted a declaration in support of the instant petition. The Board found that the
`
`previous petition failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with
`
`respect to any challenged claim and declined to institute IPR. General Plastic
`
`Indus. Co. v. Canon Inc., IPR2015-01954, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2016)
`
`(denying institution); General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Inc., IPR2015-01954,
`
`Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. May 19, 2016) (denying rehearing).
`
`1 The English translation of “Canon Kabushiki Kaisha” is “Canon Inc.”
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01359
`U.S. Patent No. 8,909,094
`
`Petitioner filed the instant petition, as well as two additional petitions
`
`challenging some or all of the same previously-challenged ’094 patent claims
`
`(IPR2016-01360 and -01361), after it had received Patent Owner’s preliminary
`
`response and the Board’s non-institution and rehearing decisions in IPR2015-
`
`01954.2 The instant petition (and the additional petitions) are devoid of any
`
`explanation as to whether Petitioner knew of the prior art that it now asserts and
`
`why petitioner waited more than nine months since its first petition to file
`
`additional petitions against the same claims.3
`
`Consistent with its precedent and policy, the Board should exercise its
`
`discretion to deny institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). As explained below,
`
`2
`
`In addition to the four petitions challenging the ’094 patent, Petitioner also filed
`
`one previously-denied petition (IPR2015-01966) and two pending petitions
`
`(IPR2016-01357 and -01358) challenging Patent Owner’s related U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,046,820 (“the ’820 patent”). Each petition against the ’094 and ’820
`
`patents was accompanied by a declaration of Dr. Springett.
`
`3 As detailed in Section II below, the record makes clear that Petitioner knew or
`
`should have known of at least some of the prior art that it now asserts when it
`
`filed its first petition.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01359
`U.S. Patent No. 8,909,094
`
`the factors outlined in NVIDIA Corp. v. Samsung Elec. Co., IPR2016-00134, Paper
`
`9 (P.T.A.B. May 4, 2016) (“NVIDIA factors”) weigh heavily against institution
`
`here. Petitioner already has had its chance to challenge the ’094 patent claims at
`
`issue here, and failed in its attempt to do so. Now, without justification, and with
`
`the Patent Owner’s preliminary response and the Board’s prior decisions from
`
`IPR2015-01954 in hand, Petitioner seeks another opportunity to attack the same
`
`claims. Such serial attacks waste the Board’s limited resources, impose undue
`
`burdens on Patent Owner, and frustrate the final resolution of the dispute between
`
`the parties.
`
`The Board should also decline to authorize IPR because Petitioner has failed
`
`to meet its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with
`
`respect to at least one claim under its alleged obviousness ground. See 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Challenged claims 1, 7-9, and 29 of the ’094
`
`patent are each directed a toner supply container, such as a toner bottle that would
`
`be used for supplying toner to a copy machine. Petitioner requests institution of
`
`IPR for alleged obviousness over the combination of Japanese Patent Appln. Pub.
`
`No. 2000-305346 (“Suzuki”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,598,254 (“Ikesue”).
`
`Petitioner has failed to show that the asserted references disclose or suggest
`
`multiple limitations of each of the challenged claims, and therefore has not
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01359
`U.S. Patent No. 8,909,094
`
`established a likelihood of success, as discussed in Section VII below. For
`
`example, the Suzuki/Ikesue combination does not disclose or suggest a toner
`
`supply container with a sealing member that has a coupling portion “configured
`
`and positioned to receive a rotational drive force,” as required by all of the
`
`challenged claims. As another example, the asserted combination of references
`
`does not disclose or suggests the rotational force receiving portion required by
`
`claims 1 and 7-9. Section VII below also identifies additional limitations of each
`
`challenged claim that Petitioner has failed to show are taught or suggested by the
`
`prior art.
`
`II.
`
`THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`Institution of
`
`IPR is discretionary.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.108(a)-(b); Cuozzo Speed. Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016);
`
`see also 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). When exercising its discretion with respect to a
`
`follow-on IPR petition, such as the instant one, the Board considers the following
`
`non-limiting factors:
`
`(1) the finite resources of the Board;
`(2) the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final
`determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the
`Director notices institution of review;
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01359
`U.S. Patent No. 8,909,094
`
`(3) whether the same petitioner already previously filed a petition
`directed to the same claims of the same patent;
`(4) whether at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner
`knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or should have
`known about it;
`(5) whether at the time of filing of the second petition the petitioner
`already received patent owner’s preliminary response to the first
`petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute
`review in the first petition;
`(6) the length of time that elapsed between the time petitioner learned
`of the prior art asserted in the second petition and filing of the
`second petition; and
`(7) whether petitioner provides adequate explanations for the time
`elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to the
`same claims of the same patent.
`
`NVIDIA, IPR2016-00134, Paper 9, at 6-7; Great West Cas. Co. v. Intellectual
`
`Ventures II LLC, IPR2016-00453, Paper 12, at 7-8 (P.T.A.B. June 9, 2016). The
`
`foregoing NVIDIA factors, and additional considerations, weigh heavily against
`
`authorizing IPR in this case.
`
`With respect to the Board’s limited resources and the statutory requirement
`
`for it to issue a final determination no later than one year after institution (NVIDIA
`
`factors 1-2), the Board has explained that allowing petitioners to file follow-on
`
`second petitions in an attempt to correct deficiencies noted by the Board when
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01359
`U.S. Patent No. 8,909,094
`
`denying first petitions “would allow petitioners to unveil strategically their best
`
`prior art and arguments in serial petitions, using [the Board’s] decisions on
`
`institution as a roadmap, until a ground is advanced that results in review—a
`
`practice that would tax Board resources, and force patent owners to defend
`
`multiple attacks.” Conopco, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., IPR2014-00506, Paper
`
`25, at 4-5 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2014). The Board has similarly explained that an
`
`institution denial “is not simply part of a feedback loop by which a petitioner may
`
`perfect
`
`its challenges through a subsequent filing,” and “[p]ermitting second
`
`chances without constraint ties up the Board’s limited resources; [the Board] must
`
`be mindful not only of
`
`this proceeding, but of
`
`‘every proceeding.’”
`
`Travelocity.com L.P. v. Cronos Techs., LLC, CBM2015-00047, Paper 7, at 13
`
`(P.T.A.B. June 15, 2015); Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP,
`
`IPR2015-00118, Paper 14, at 6 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2015) (citations omitted).
`
`As noted above, the same Petitioner previously filed a petition directed to
`
`the same claims (plus additional claims) of the same patent on September 25, 2015
`
`(NVIDIA factor 3). When it filed the instant petition on July 8, 2016, Petitioner
`
`had received Patent Owner’s December 22, 2015 preliminary response in prior
`
`IPR2015-01954, as well as the Board’s March 9, 2016 decision declining to
`
`institute IPR and the Board’s May 19, 2016 decision denying Petitioner’s request
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01359
`U.S. Patent No. 8,909,094
`
`for rehearing (NVIDIA factor 5). Petitioner has not provided any explanation, let
`
`alone an adequate one, for the time elapsed between its filings of multiple petitions
`
`directed to the same claims of the same patent (NVIDIA factor 7). Furthermore,
`
`Petitioner has not
`
`identified when it first
`
`learned of the presently asserted
`
`references, or justified any time that elapsed between when it learned of those
`
`references and its filing of the instant petition on July 8, 2016 (NVIDIA factors 4
`
`and 6).
`
`Petitioner knew of Ikesue at least as early as May 8, 2012, when Petitioner
`
`identified Ikesue as prior art against Patent Owner’s related U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,647,012 (“the ’012 patent”) in Canon Inc. v. Color Imaging, Inc., et al., Case No.
`
`11-cv-3855 (N.D. Ga.) (“the ’012 district court litigation”).4 Ex. 2003 at 10; see
`
`4 The ’094 patent claims priority to the application that issued as the ’012 patent.
`
`Ex. 1001 at col. 1:8-17. Exs. 2003 and 2004 are Petitioner’s May 8, 2012 and
`
`April 9, 2014 invalidity contentions from the ’012 district court litigation.
`
`In
`
`that litigation, Dr. Springett—who is Petitioner’s declarant here—submitted
`
`two expert reports opining that the asserted claims of the ’012 patent are
`
`invalid, and the district court granted summary judgment of no invalidity.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01359
`U.S. Patent No. 8,909,094
`
`also Ex. 2004 at 10.
`
`Ikesue also was of record during prosecution of the ’094
`
`patent. Petitioner does not state when it first learned of Suzuki, but contends that
`
`Suzuki’s cap portion and Ikesue’s lid “have the same intended purpose (i.e., the
`
`sealing/unsealing of a toner supply container) and show only relatively minor
`
`geometric differences to achieve that purpose.” Ex. 1001 at 2; Petition at 33.
`
`Notably, Petitioner does not contend that Suzuki teaches anything beyond Ikesue,
`
`and Petitioner’s decision to rely on Suzuki and Ikesue in combination rather than
`
`Ikesue alone appears to have been motivated by nothing more than a desire to have
`
`at least one reference not previously of record in its first ground.
`
`In any case,
`
`Petitioner’s failure to offer any explanation of when it learned of the references
`
`upon which it relies supports a reasonable inference that both were known or
`
`available to Petitioner at the time it filed its first petition. Roche Molecular Sys.,
`
`Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., IPR2015-01091, Paper 18, at 15 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2015);
`
`Conopco, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., IPR2014-00628, Paper 21, at 11
`
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2014).
`
`The Board’s precedent and policy support declining review pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a). See, e.g., Great West Cas., IPR2016-00453, Paper 12, at 7-13;
`
`NVIDIA, IPR2016-00134, Paper 9, at 6-12; Conopco, IPR2014-00628, Paper 21, at
`
`11-12. Petitioner’s serial filings place unjustified burdens on both the Board and
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01359
`U.S. Patent No. 8,909,094
`
`Patent Owner. As the Board has explained, declining review under circumstances
`
`such as these will,
`
`in the interests of
`
`fairness, economy, and efficiency,
`
`“discourage[] the filing of a first petition that holds back prior art for use in
`
`successive attacks, should the first petition be denied.” Conopco, IPR2014-00628,
`
`Paper 21, at 11. And declining review will avoid the inequity to Patent Owner that
`
`would result from Petitioner having received the benefit of studying Patent
`
`Owner’s preliminary response and the Board’s decisions in earlier IPR2015-01954
`
`before filing the instant petition. NVIDIA, IPR2016-00134, Paper 9, at 8.
`
`It is also worth noting that, prior to filing any of its IPR petitions, Petitioner
`
`declined an opportunity to challenge the ’094 patent’s validity in In the Matter of
`
`Certain Toner Supply Containers and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-960
`
`(U.S.I.T.C. instituted July 10, 2015). In that case, Patent Owner accused Petitioner
`
`of infringing the same ’094 patent claims now at issue. Instead of defending itself,
`
`Petitioner unilaterally moved to terminate the investigation based on a voluntary
`
`consent order prohibiting future infringement. Ex. 2001; Ex. 2002.
`
`In so doing,
`
`Petitioner represented that termination would be “in the public interest, which
`
`favors the settlement of dispute[s] to avoid needless litigation and to conserve
`
`resources,” because it would “conserve the time and resources of both the
`
`Commission and the private parties ….” Ex. 2001 at 2, 7-8. Patent Owner did not
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01359
`U.S. Patent No. 8,909,094
`
`oppose, and the ITC granted Petitioner’s motion and entered the consent order that
`
`Petitioner requested on September 2, 2015. Ex. 2002. As it turns out, the consent
`
`order did not settle the dispute, because Petitioner has since filed four IPR petitions
`
`asking both the government and Patent Owner to expend time and resources
`
`repeatedly addressing the ’094 patent’s validity, in an attempt to get out from
`
`under the very consent order to which Petitioner voluntarily agreed. The Board
`
`should exercise its discretion and deny institution here to discourage such
`
`gamesmanship.
`
`III. TECHNOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The ’094 Patent
`
`The challenged claims of the ’094 patent are directed to a toner supply
`
`container of the type used in an electrophotographic image forming apparatus, such
`
`as a copying machine. Ex. 1001 at col. 1:26-36, claims 1, 7-9, 29. In FIG. 3 of the
`
`’094 patent, shown below, an exemplary toner supply container is denoted by
`
`reference number 1 and a main assembly of a copier is denoted by reference
`
`number 100. The toner supply container is installed in the copier by inserting it in
`
`the direction indicated by arrow “a.” Id. at cols. 7:5-23, 9:25-27.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01359
`U.S. Patent No. 8,909,094
`
`FIG. 3
`
`The toner supply container has an opening 1a at one end. Id. at FIGS. 8, 10,
`
`col. 9:37-39. The opening is sealed when the toner supply container is outside of
`
`the copier. Id. at col. 9:41-47. When the toner supply container is installed in the
`
`copier, two things happen: (1) the opening is unsealed; and (2) when the copier is
`
`being used, the toner supply container is rotated. Id. at cols. 7:24-8:54. The toner
`
`supply container has an internal structure, such as the helical projection shown in
`
`FIG. 8 of the ’094 patent, that causes the toner inside of the container to be fed out
`
`of the opening and into a toner hopper within the copier when the container is
`
`rotated. Id. at FIG. 8, cols. 9:64-10:37.
`
`The challenged independent claims recite as follows:
`
`1. A toner supply container comprising:
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01359
`U.S. Patent No. 8,909,094
`
`i) a container body configured to contain toner and rotatable about an
`axis thereof, the container body including a cylindrical portion and an
`opening provided at one axial end portion thereof and configured to
`permit discharge of the toner contained in the container body; and
`
`ii) a sealing member provided at the one axial end portion of the
`container body, the sealing member being movable relative to the
`container body in an axial direction of the container body, the sealing
`member including:
`
`ii-i) a sealing portion provided at a side adjacent the container
`body and configured to seal the opening when the sealing member
`and the container body are in a first position relative to one
`another, the opening becoming unsealed by relative movement of
`the sealing member and the container body away from one another
`from the first position to a second position relative to one another;
`and
`
`ii-ii) a coupling portion provided at a side remote from the
`container body and configured and positioned to receive a
`rotational drive force for rotating the sealing member and the
`container body about the rotation axis of the container body, the
`coupling portion including:
`ii-ii-i) a supporting portion provided on the sealing portion, the
`supporting portion being elastically displaceable in an inward
`direction toward the rotation axis of the container body and
`elastically restorable in an outward direction away from the
`rotation axis of the container body;
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01359
`U.S. Patent No. 8,909,094
`
`ii-ii-ii) an engaging portion provided at a free end of the
`supporting portion and being displaceable with the supporting
`portion, the engaging portion including:
`ii-ii-ii-i) a rotational force receiving portion capable of being
`abutted in a direction that is concentric with a circumference
`of the cylindrical portion of the container body to receive a
`rotational drive force for rotating the sealing member and
`the container body; and
`
`ii-ii-ii-ii) a locking portion capable of being abutted in a
`direction parallel to the rotation axis of the container body to
`enable the relative movement of the sealing member and the
`container body from the first position, in which the opening
`is sealed, to the second position, in which the opening is
`unsealed; and
`ii-ii-iii) a displacing force receiving portion provided on the
`supporting portion at a position closer to the container body
`than the engaging portion,
`the displacing force receiving
`portion being displaceable with the supporting portion and
`having a radially outermost part that is more remote from the
`rotation axis of the container body than a radially outermost
`part of the engaging portion,
`the engaging portion, and the
`wherein the supporting portion,
`displacing force receiving portion are integrally molded.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01359
`U.S. Patent No. 8,909,094
`
`29. A toner supply container comprising:
`i) a container body configured to contain toner and rotatable about an
`axis thereof, the container body including a cylindrical portion and an
`opening provided at one axial end portion thereof and configured to
`permit discharge of the toner contained in the container body; and
`ii) a sealing member provided at the one axial end portion of the
`container body, the sealing member being movable relative to the
`container body in an axial direction of the container body,
`the sealing member including:
`ii-i) a sealing portion provided at a side adjacent the container
`body and configured to seal the opening when the sealing member
`and the container body are in a first position relative to one
`another, the opening becoming unsealed by relative movement of
`the sealing member and the container body away from one another
`from the first position to a second position relative to one another;
`and
`ii-ii) a coupling portion provided at a side remote from the
`container body and configured and positioned to receive a
`rotational drive force, the coupling portion including;
`ii-ii-i) a supporting portion provided on the sealing portion, the
`supporting portion being elastically displaceable in an inward
`direction toward the axis of the container body and elastically
`restorable in an outward direction away from the axis of the
`container body;
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01359
`U.S. Patent No. 8,909,094
`
`ii-ii-ii) an engaging portion provided at a free end of the
`supporting portion and being displaceable with the supporting
`portion; and
`ii-ii-iii) a projecting portion provided at a position closer to the
`container body than the engaging portion, the projecting portion
`projecting radially from an outer surface of the supporting
`portion such that a radially outermost part of the projecting
`portion is more remote from the axis of the container body than
`a radially outermost part of the engaging portion, and the
`projecting portion being displaceable with the supporting
`portion,
`
`the engaging portion, and the
`wherein the supporting portion,
`projecting portion are integrally molded.
`Id. at claims 1, 29.
`
`Elements of the claimed toner supply container include a container body and
`
`a sealing member, the latter having a sealing portion (labeled 2b in FIG. 36A
`
`below) and a coupling portion (labeled 2c in FIG. 36A below). The coupling
`
`portion, in turn, includes a supporting portion (not labeled in FIG. 36A below, but
`
`labeled 2f in other figures of the ’094 patent, e.g., FIG. 23), an engaging portion
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01359
`U.S. Patent No. 8,909,094
`
`(labeled 3 in FIG. 36A below), and a displacing force receiving portion5 (labeled 4
`
`in FIG. 36A below). Each engaging portion has two sub-portions—a rotational
`
`force receiving portion and a locking portion—which, although not labeled in FIG.
`
`36A below, are labeled in other figures of the ’094 patent, e.g., reference numbers
`
`3a and 3b, respectively, in FIGS. 12 and 13. The sealing member’s coupling
`
`portion is engageable with a part in the copier, specifically, a hollow cylindrical
`
`driving member (labeled 20 in FIG. 36A below). The driving member contains a
`
`slot 20h, which is interrupted by a pair of ribs 20a.
`
`5 Challenged claim 29 recites a projecting portion instead of a displacing force
`
`receiving portion.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01359
`U.S. Patent No. 8,909,094
`
`FIG. 36A
`
`When the toner supply container is installed in the copier, the supporting
`
`portions of the sealing member first elastically displace inwardly so that the
`
`coupling portion can enter the driving member, and then elastically restore
`
`outwardly (that is, back to their original position) so that the engaging portions
`
`engage with the slot in the driving member.
`
`Id. at cols. 12:57-13:7, 18:28-32.
`
`FIG. 24 of the ’094 patent, shown below, provides a cross-sectional view of the
`
`state in which the coupling portion of the sealing member has entered the driving
`
`member 20 and the engaging portions 3 have engaged with the slot of the driving
`
`member.6
`
`6
`
`In addition to showing the toner supply container, the sealing member, and the
`
`driving member, FIG. 24 also shows a hollow cylinder 21. The hollow
`
`cylinder, not to be confused with the hollow cylindrical driving member 20, is a
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01359
`U.S. Patent No. 8,909,094
`
`FIG. 24
`
`Once the engaging portions have engaged with the slot of the driving
`
`member, the driving member and the container body are moved relatively away
`
`from each other. This movement may be caused, for example, by the closing of a
`
`cover on the copier. As the driving member and the container body move
`
`relatively away from each other, so too do the sealing member and the container
`
`body. This is because the engaging portions are engaged with the slot of the
`
`driving member. Therefore, as the driving member and the container body pull
`
`away from each other, the sealing member is pulled out of the opening in the
`
`part of the copier that is concentric with and movable relative to the driving
`
`member. As discussed in more detail below, the hollow cylinder plays a role in
`
`disengaging the engaging portions from the slot in the driving member when
`
`the container is removed from the copier.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01359
`U.S. Patent No. 8,909,094
`
`container body. Id. at cols. 8:9-17, 9:25-32, 15:4-18, 18:28-32. FIG. 25A, shown
`
`below, illustrates the unsealed state in which the driving member 20, and with it,
`
`the sealing member 2, have been moved relatively away from the container body.
`
`Id. at col. 18:61-63.
`
`FIG. 25A
`
`When the container body’s opening is unsealed, a motor within the copier
`
`rotates the copier’s driving member. Abutment of one or more of the driving
`
`member’s ribs with one or more of the sealing member’s engaging portions—
`
`specifically, the engaging portions’ rotational driving force receiving portions—
`
`rotates the toner supply container.
`
`Id. at col. 14:29-45. For example, the below
`
`annotated version of the ’094 patent’s FIG. 23 shows using red arrows how one or
`
`more ribs 20a abut one or more rotational driving force receiving portions 3a (on
`
`the sides of engaging portions 3, highlighted in yellow) as the driving member
`
`rotates, thereby rotating the toner supply container:
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01359
`U.S. Patent No. 8,909,094
`
`FIG. 23A
`
`See id. at cols. 11:63-12:18, 14:29-45, 18:28-42. Rotation of the toner supply
`
`container causes the toner to be fed out of the opening in the container body an