Filed on behalf of: GEP Power Products, Inc.
`
`By: Michael T. Griggs, Eric J. Lalor, Sarah M. Wong
`
`BOYLE FREDRICKSON, S.C.
`
`840 North Plankinton Avenue
`
`Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203
`
`414-225-9755
`
`mtg@boylefred.com, ejl@boylefred.com,
`smw@boylefred.com
`
`
`
`Paper No.____
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`-------------------------
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`-------------------------
`
`GEP Power Products, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Arctic Cat Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`-------------------------
`
`Case IPR2016-________
`Patent 7,072,188
`
`-------------------------
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
` GEP Power Products, Inc. (“Petitioner”) is a real party-in-interest and
`
`
`
`submits this Petition for Inter Partes Review of claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent
`
`7,072,188 (“the ‘188 patent”) (Ex. 1001). Polaris Industries Inc. (“Polaris”) is also
`
`a real party-in-interest. There are no other real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`
`
`On January 4, 2016, Arctic Cat Inc. (“Patent Owner”) sued Polaris in the
`
`U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging infringement of the ‘188
`
`patent, captioned Arctic Cat Inc. v. Polaris Industries Inc., Case No. 0:16-cv-
`
`00008-WMW-HB. Petitioner supplies a power distribution module to Polaris that
`
`Patent Owner has accused of infringing the ‘188 patent.
`
`C. Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel:
`
`
`
`Michael T. Griggs (Reg. No. 52,969)
`
`Back-up Counsel:
`
`Eric J. Lalor (Reg. No. 54,631)
`
`Back-up Counsel:
`
`Sarah M. Wong (Reg. No. 69,991)
`
`
`
`
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`
`Email:
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael Griggs, mtg@boylefred.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Post and hand delivery: Boyle Fredrickson, 840 N. Plankinton Ave.,
`Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203
`
`
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`Telephone: 414-225-9755
`
`Facsimile: 414-225-9753
`
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Claims 1-23 of the ‘188 patent are unpatentable for the grounds listed below:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-6, 11, 19, 22 and 23 are unpatentable under § 102 as
`
`anticipated by Boyd.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 12-18 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Boyd in
`
`view of Svette and Caveney.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1-12 and 19-23 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over
`
`Svette.
`
`
`
`This Petition, which is further supported by the declaration of Lawrence R.
`
`Happ, demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail
`
`with respect to at least one challenged claim and that each challenged claim is not
`
`patentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`2
`
`
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘188 PATENT (Ex. 1001)
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the purported invention
`
`
`
`Generally speaking, the ‘188 patent discloses a power distribution module
`
`for personal recreational vehicles such as ATVs and snowmobiles. The power
`
`distribution module includes a housing having a component attachment portion and
`
`a cover. The component attachment portion has a plurality of receptacle openings,
`
`which may be arranged in an array, for receiving various electrical components,
`
`e.g., diodes, relays, circuit breakers, and fuses. The component attachment portion
`
`also includes a fastener for securing the cover to the component attachment
`
`portion. The module further includes a distribution harness that bundles a plurality
`
`of electrical conductors, e.g., wires, which are received within the receptacle
`
`openings to electrically interface with the electrical components. These structures
`
`and configurations, which merely reflect a conventional power distribution
`
`module, are more or less common to all of the claims at issue here. Figures 2 and
`
`9 from the ‘188 patent are shown below, identifying these conventional structures
`
`and configurations.
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`Cover
`
`
`
`Component
`Attachment
`Portion
`
`Component
`Attachment
`Portion
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`4
`
`Fastener
`
`Distribution
`Harness
`
`
`
`Receptacle
`Openings
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`As is clear from the prosecution history and the prior art submitted herewith,
`
`power distribution modules having a component attachment portion with a
`
`plurality of receptacle openings, a cover, a fastener for securing the cover to the
`
`component attachment portion, and a distribution harness, as shown above, were
`
`well known in the art prior to the filing date of the ‘188 patent.
`
`B.
`
`The Prosecution History (Ex. 1008)
`
`
`
`While there were numerous rejections, as well as a Request for Continued
`
`Examination, the claims of the ‘188 patent were not heavily amended during
`
`prosecution. Most of the limitations appearing in claims 1-23 were presented in
`
`the original claim set filed on October 29, 2002.
`
`All but one of the original claims were rejected in an Office Action dated
`
`January 22, 2004, based primarily upon U.S. Publication 2003/0184988 to Boyd
`
`(“Boyd”). Rather than dispute the substantive rejections, Patent Owner submitted
`
`a declaration from the inventor attempting to swear behind Boyd, which the
`
`Examiner deemed to be sufficient.
`
` All claims were again rejected in a subsequent Office Action dated October
`
`19, 2004, this time based upon U.S. Patent 6,121,548 to Matsouka (“Matsouka”)
`
`(Ex. 1003). Fig. 1 from Matsouka is shown below, which discloses all of the basic
`
`components of the distribution module claimed in the ‘188 patent, e.g., a
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`component attachment portion, a cover, a distribution harness, receptacle openings,
`
`and a fastener for securing the cover to the component attachment portion.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner responded to these claim rejections by arguing that Matsouka
`
`did not disclose receptacles that are equally spaced apart in rows and columns (a
`
`
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`limitation of independent claims 1 and 19 of the ‘188 patent). See January 4, 2005
`
`Response to Office Action, pg. 7, ¶ 4.
`
`
`
`The Examiner finally rejected the claims in view of Matsouka, but this time
`
`in combination with U.S. Patent 6,121,548 to Happ (“Happ”) (Ex. 1004), which
`
`discloses equally spaced receptacles arranged in rows and columns. See March 25,
`
`2005 Office Action. Patent Owner responded to this final rejection by arguing that
`
`Matsouka failed to disclose receptacles arranged in equally spaced rows and
`
`columns, that Happ failed to disclose this configuration as well, and that there was
`
`no motivation to combine Matsouka with Happ. See July 25, 2005 Response to
`
`Office Action, pp. 6-8. The Examiner issued an Advisory Action rejecting Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments, stating that there was sufficient motivation to combine
`
`Matsouka with Happ. See October 4, 2005 Advisory Action.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner then filed a Request for Continued Examination, amending
`
`claim 1 to further define the interaction between the component attachment portion
`
`and the cover by requiring that the cover attach to the component attachment
`
`portion. Patent Owner characterized Matsouka as disclosing an upper cover 12 and
`
`a lower cover 14 that did not attach to the mounting block (i.e., the component
`
`attachment portion). Patent Owner also added new claims relying on the same
`
`cover-component attachment portion configuration as claim 1 to distinguish over
`
`Matsouka. See October 14, 2005 Response.
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`In response, the Examiner issued an Office Action rejecting most of the
`
`claims in view of Boyd (citing this time to the issued patent as opposed to the
`
`publication). See January 20, 2006 Office Action. The Office Action determined
`
`that claims 11 and 30-35, which are directed to cable tie-downs, contained
`
`allowable subject matter.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner responded by attempting to swear behind Boyd, as before,
`
`which the Examiner accepted. A Notice of Allowance issued on May 4, 2006, and
`
`the ‘188 patent issued on July 4, 2006.
`
`
`
`Thus, based upon the prosecution history, the USPTO previously determined
`
`the patentable aspects of the ‘188 patent to be:
`
` securing the cover to the component attachment portion (based upon
`
`applicant’s amendment to distinguish over Matsouka)
`
` using a toothed strip to encircle the harness and secure it to the housing
`
`(stated in January 20, 2006 Office Action)
`
` a tie-down projecting from the outer wall of the component attachment
`
`portion and a cable tie that encircles the harness and the tie-down to secure
`
`the harness to the component attachment portion (stated in January 20, 2006
`
`Office Action)
`
`As explained in further detail below, each of these purportedly patentable aspects
`
`claimed in the ‘188 patent is found in the prior art.
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`A. Boyd (Ex. 1002)
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Boyd is available as prior art in this proceeding
`
`As discussed above, most of the current claims of the ‘188 patent were
`
`rejected during prosecution based upon Boyd. Rather than attempt to substantively
`
`distinguish the claims over Boyd, Patent Owner instead attempted to swear behind
`
`Boyd by submitting two declarations from the named inventor, Darrel Janisch,
`
`which were ultimately accepted by the Examiner.
`
`The Board, however, is not bound by the Examiner’s determination that the
`
`two Janisch declarations sufficiently antedated Boyd. See Iron Dome LLC v. E-
`
`Watch, Inc., IPR2014-00439, Institution Decision (Paper 16), August 4, 2014, pg.
`
`6. Here, as in Iron Dome, the declarations are insufficient.
`
`Priority of invention goes to the first party to reduce to practice unless the
`
`other party can show that it was the first to conceive the invention and that it
`
`exercised reasonable diligence in later reducing that invention to practice. Brown
`
`v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d
`
`1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1577
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1996). An inventor’s testimony, standing alone, is insufficient to prove
`
`conception, as some form of corroboration is required. Mahurkar, 79 F.3d at 1577;
`
`Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A rule of reason applies to
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`determine whether the inventor’s testimony has been corroborated. Price, 988 F.2d
`
`at 1194.
`
`During the period in which reasonable diligence must be shown, there must
`
`be continuous exercise of reasonable diligence. In re McIntosh, 230 F.2d 615, 619
`
`(CCPA 1956); see also Burns v. Curtis, 172 F.2d 588, 591 (CCPA 1949) (referring
`
`to “reasonably continuous activity”). A party alleging diligence must account for
`
`the entire critical period. Griffith v. Kanamuru, 816 F.2d 624, 626 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1987); Gould v. Schawlow, 363 F.2d 908, 919 (CCPA 1966). Even a short period
`
`of unexplained inactivity is sufficient to defeat a claim of diligence. Morway v.
`
`Bondi, 203 F.2d 742, 749 (CCPA 1953); Ireland v. Smith, 97 F.2d 95, 99-100
`
`(CCPA 1938). In In re Mulder, 716 F.2d 1542, 1542-46 (Fed. Cir. 1983), for
`
`example, the Federal Circuit affirmed a determination of lack of reasonable
`
`diligence, where the evidence of record was lacking for a two-day critical period.
`
`Likewise, in Rieser v. Williams, 255 F.2d 419, 424 (CCPA 1958), there was
`
`no showing of diligence where no activity was shown during the first thirteen days
`
`of the critical period. A party alleging diligence must provide corroboration with
`
`evidence that is specific both as to facts and dates. Gould, 363 F.2d at 920;
`
`Kendall v. Searles, 173 F.2d 986, 993 (CCPA 1949). The rule of reason does not
`
`dispense with the need for corroboration of diligence that is specific as to dates and
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`facts. Gould, 363 F.2d at 920; Kendall, 173 F.2d at 993; see also Coleman v.
`
`Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 360 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`Here, there are several issues with the Janisch declarations. First and
`
`foremost is the purported evidence of conception – a drawing purporting to show
`
`“an example embodiment of the invention generated prior to April 1, 2002.” See
`
`Ex. A to July 22, 2004 Janisch Decl. However, the author of the drawing is “K
`
`Boyd,” as shown below.
`
`
`
`This is problematic, to say the least, as it is the Boyd patent, i.e., U.S. Patent
`
`6,850,421 invented by Kenneth S. Boyd, that Janisch is attempting to antedate.
`
`Why is Janisch relying on Boyd’s drawing as evidence of Janisch’s conception?
`
`This raises inventorship questions, and, more importantly, inequitable conduct
`
`concerns. While not at issue here, these open questions certainly cast a cloud on
`
`the reliability of Janisch’s claim to prior invention.
`
`The reliability concerns are further compounded by the fact that the drawing
`
`sheet submitted by Janisch includes drawings that are nearly identical to figures in
`
`the Boyd patent. See below, e.g., a figure from the drawing sheet at left and the
`
`Boyd patent at right.
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yet even if the Janisch declarations are taken at face value – which they
`
`
`
`should not be – there are far too many gaps in the timeline to establish diligence
`
`between conception and reduction to practice. For example:
`
` While there is no specific date of conception asserted, there is an
`
`unexplained 28-day gap between April 1, 2002 (the filing date of the Boyd
`
`patent) and the first diligence entry on April 29, 2002.
`
` There is an unexplained 18-day gap between the first diligence entry on
`
`April 1, 2002 and the second diligence entry on May 17, 2002.
`
` There is an unexplained 34-day gap between the diligence entry on May 21,
`
`2002 and the next diligence entry on June 24, 2002.
`
` There is an unexplained 51-day gap between the diligence entry on June 26,
`
`2002 and the next diligence entry on August 16, 2002.
`
` There is an unexplained 73-day gap between the diligence entry on August
`
`16, 2002 and the next diligence entry on October 28, 2002 (which is one day
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`before the application for the ‘188 patent was filed and thus the end of the
`
`diligence inquiry).
`
`Setting aside the serious reliability concerns, when taken at face value the
`
`Janisch declarations fail to establish diligence in reduction to practice. Thus, Boyd
`
`is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`2.
`
`Boyd’s disclosure
`
`
`
`As set forth in the Examiner’s rejections during prosecution, Boyd discloses
`
`a power distribution module including nearly all of the features claimed in the ‘188
`
`patent, which Patent Owner did not substantively dispute. The only features that
`
`the Examiner did not identify in Boyd are the use of a toothed strip to secure the
`
`harness to the housing (which is nevertheless a conventional practice), and the use
`
`of a tie-down in conjunction with a cable-tie to secure the harness to the
`
`component attachment portion (also a conventional practice).
`
`
`
`The figures of Boyd are strikingly similar to the figures in the ‘188 patent,
`
`which is not surprising given the apparent collaboration between Tyco Electronics
`
`Corporation and Patent Owner in developing this technology. See Janisch
`
`Declarations and Exhibits. Figures 1 and 2 of Boyd are shown below, identifying
`
`the key components claimed in the ‘188 patent.
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`Cover
`
`Component
`Attachment
`Portion
`
`Component
`Attachment
`Portion
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Electrical
`Components
`
`Fastener
`
`
`
`Equally
`Spaced
`Receptacle
`Openings
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`As explained in Boyd, at the time of the invention (i.e., 2002), fuse boxes
`
`(also referred to as a power distribution module) were typically “vehicle specific.”
`
`Boyd, 1:32-35. In other words, each vehicle had a particular fuse box including a
`
`particular configuration of electrical components. Thus, a configurable fuse box,
`
`such as the one disclosed in Boyd, would simplify vehicle design by enabling
`
`usage of the fuse box across different vehicles having different electrical
`
`components and configurations. Boyd, 1:33-54.
`
`
`
`The fuse box of Boyd includes a component attachment portion (20),
`
`receptacle openings (31) for receiving electrical components (e), a cover (10), a
`
`distribution harness (discussed at 4:19-21 and 4:41-46), a fastener on the outer wall
`
`(22), a latch (12) that secures the cover to the component attachment portion, and
`
`tie downs (24, 26) to secure the fuse box to a substrate, e.g., by using a
`
`conventional cable tie or additional mounting bracket.
`
`B.
`
`Svette (Ex. 1005)
`
`
`
`Svette discloses a power distribution module and was not considered during
`
`prosecution of the ‘188 patent. Svette issued on October 11, 1994, so it is prior art
`
`to the ‘188 patent under § 102(b).
`
`
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`Equally
`Spaced
`Receptacle
`Openings
`
`Component
`Attachment
`Portion
`
`Electrical
`Components
`
`Fastener to
`secure a
`Cover
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Fig. 1 from Svette above, the module includes the general
`
`components disclosed and claimed in the ‘188 patent, such as a component
`
`attachment portion, equally spaced receptacle openings, a cover (not shown in the
`
`figures but described in the specification), and a fastener for securing the cover to
`
`the component attachment portion.
`
`
`
`Thus, in addition to the other elements of the independent claims, Svette
`
`discloses attaching the cover to the component attachment portion, which was the
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`basis for allowance for the independent claims. Specifically, Svette explains that
`
`“the connector housing at each of its ends 36, 38 has a pair of guides 140 and an
`
`intermediate ramp 142. The ramp 142 is adapted to be connected to a latch finger
`
`(not shown) of a cover (not shown) for covering the entire connector housing 12.”
`
`Svette, 3:66-4:2.
`
`3.
`
`Caveney (Ex. 1006)
`
`
`
`Caveney discloses a cable tie and was not considered during prosecution of
`
`the ‘188 patent. Caveney issued on September 30, 1975, so it is prior art to the
`
`‘188 patent under § 102(b). Figures 1 and 4 are shown below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In an inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Pursuant to that standard, the claim language
`
`should be read in light of the specification, as it would be interpreted by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010). Thus, the Board generally gives claim terms their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
`
`(“The ordinary and customary meaning is the meaning that the term would have to
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.”) [internal quotation marks
`
`omitted].
`
`Here, the claim terms do not require any specific constructions and should
`
`be accorded their ordinary and customary meaning. As explained above, the
`
`claims largely describe a conventional power distribution module, identifying
`
`components such as “housing,” “cover,” “component attachment portion,”
`
`“openings,” and “distribution harness.”
`
`The Trial Practice Guide explains that “where appropriate, it may be
`
`sufficient for a party to provide a simple statement that the claim terms are to be
`
`given their broadest reasonable interpretation, as understood by one of ordinary
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`skill in the art and consistent with the disclosure.” Guide, pg. 38. That is the case
`
`here.
`
`“The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is
`
`presumed to know the relevant prior art.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1995), quoting Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc.,
`
`807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, for purposes of this Petition, a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art would have a working knowledge of Boyd, Svette,
`
`Caveney, and all of the prior art cited during the prosecution history. Further, a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that using a toothed strip
`
`is a conventional method widely employed by those having ordinary skill in the art
`
`to secure wires and wire harnesses at the time of the purported invention of the
`
`‘188 patent. Happ Decl. (Ex. 1007), ¶ 50-51.
`
`In terms of education and experience, a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have at least a bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering with
`
`at least two to five years of work experience relating to designing electrical control
`
`system components. Happ Decl., ¶ 49.
`
`
`
`
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`
`VII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS OF REJECTION
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-6, 11, 19, 22 and 23 are unpatentable
`under § 102 as anticipated by Boyd
`
`
`
` Independent claims 1, 11 and 19 are largely duplicative of one another. The
`
`primary elements of the distribution module claimed by each are: a cover, a
`
`component attachment portion, receptacle openings for receiving electrical
`
`components and wires, and a distribution harness, which is a bundle of wires.
`
`These main claim elements are collectively addressed below. Additional
`
`limitations in the claims are also addressed, with the particular claim identified in
`
`the heading. Summary claim charts follow.
`
`1. Housing including a component attachment portion and
`a cover (Independent Claims 1, 11 and 19)
`
`
`Boyd discloses a housing that includes a base 20 (i.e., the component
`
`attachment portion) and a cover 10. See, e.g., Boyd, Fig. 1, Happ Decl., ¶ 54. The
`
`cover has a first surface substantially surrounding the perimeter of the cover – in
`
`other words, it is a conventional cover. Boyd, Fig. 1, Happ Decl., ¶ 54. The first
`
`surface of the cover conforms to a first edge along the perimeter of the component
`
`attachment portion – again, a conventional configuration for a cover and a base
`
`that are to be attached to one another. Boyd, Figs. 1, 4 and 6; see also Boyd, 4:47-
`
`60 for a further description of how the cover attaches to the base; Happ Decl., ¶ 54.
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`
`
`The base has lugs 22, 73 (i.e., a fastener) for securing the cover to the base. Happ
`
`Decl., ¶ 54
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Plurality of receptacle openings (Independent Claims
`1, 11 and 19, dependent claims 2 and 3)
`
`Boyd discloses a plurality of receptacle openings (in claims 11 and 19 they
`
`are called “connector receptacles”). See, e.g., Boyd, Fig. 2, showing channels 30;
`
`Happ Decl., ¶ 55. The openings are spaced apart in rows and columns, where the
`
`spacing between the rows and columns is substantially the same. See, e.g., Boyd,
`
`Fig. 2; Happ Decl., ¶ 55. The openings receive at last one electrical component
`
`within the housing across multiple rows or across multiple columns of openings.
`
`See, e.g., Fig. 1, showing electrical components a extending across multiple
`
`channels 30; Happ Decl., ¶ 54.
`
`Claim 2 requires the openings arranged in a spaced-apart array, which is
`
`shown in Fig. 2 of Boyd. Claim 3 requires an array of three columns and six rows,
`
`which is also shown in Fig. 2 of Boyd.
`
`3.
`
`Distribution harness (Independent Claims 1, 11 and
`19)
`
`
`
`Boyd explains that wires may be grouped together “by way of harness.”
`
`Boyd, 4:19-21; Happ Decl., ¶ 56. Boyd further states that the mounting means
`
`may provide space between the base and the substrate to provide enough room for
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`
`
`any wire harness or harnesses that may be connected to the module. Boyd 4:41-46;
`
`Happ Decl., ¶ 56.
`
`4.
`
`Cover is removable (Claim 4)
`
`
`
`Boyd discloses lugs 22 and 73 that engage latches 12 and 13, respectively, to
`
`lock the cover into place. See Figs. 6; Boyd 4:47-60; Happ Decl., ¶ 57.
`
`5.
`
`Cover is removable with one hand (Claim 5)
`
`
`
`Boyd discloses a cover that has latches on opposing sides of the cover.
`
`Given the typical dimensions of conventional fuse boxes, such as disclosed in
`
`Boyd, a person would be able to remove the cover of Boyd with one hand. Happ
`
`Decl., ¶ 58.
`
`6. Outer wall and fastener secured to the outer wall
`(Independent Claim 11 and claim 22)
`
`
`
`Independent claim 11 further defines the component attachment portion as
`
`having an outer wall surrounding a plurality of connector receptacles. This is
`
`shown, for example, in Figure 1 of Boyd. Happ Decl., ¶ 59. Boyd also discloses a
`
`fastener (i.e., lug 22) secured to the outer wall proximate the first edge as required
`
`by claim 11. See Boyd, Fig. 1; Happ Decl., ¶ 59. Claim 22, which depends from
`
`independent claim 19, also includes the limitations of an outer wall surrounding the
`
`connector receptacles and a fastener secured to the outer wall. These are disclosed
`
`by Boyd as described above. Happ Decl., ¶ 59.
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Upper and lower receiver (Independent Claim 19)
`
`Independent claim 19 further defines the connector receptacles as having an
`
`upper receiver and a lower receiver. The electrical components are inserted into
`
`the upper receivers of the component receptacles, and the electrical conductors
`
`(i.e., the wires) are inserted into the lower receptacles. This conventional
`
`configuration is shown in Figure 3 of Boyd and described at 3:61-4:14; Happ
`
`Decl., ¶ 60.
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Upper receiver configured to receive standard
`electrical connectors (Claims 6 and 23)
`
`As described shown in Figure 3 of Boyd and described at 3:61-4:14, the
`
`channels are configured to receive components and wire terminals “as known in
`
`the art,” in other words, standard electrical connectors. Happ Decl., ¶ 61
`
`9.
`
`Summary claim chart for Ground 1
`
`
`
`A power distribution module for a
`personal recreational vehicle
`comprising:
`
`a housing defining an interior,
`including a component attachment
`portion
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-6, 11, 19, 22 and 23
`Unpatentable as anticipated by Boyd
`
`Claim 1
`Boyd, Fig. 1; Boyd, 2:8-9 (“The
`preferred embodiments comprise a
`cover and a power distribution module
`base.”)
`Boyd, Figs. 1 and 2; Boyd, 3:52-54
`(“FIG. 2 is a view of the underside of
`base 20 without installed electrical
`components. A 4x9 matrix of channels
`30 is seen.”)
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`23
`
`

`
`
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-6, 11, 19, 22 and 23
`Unpatentable as anticipated by Boyd
`
`
`Boyd, Fig. 1
`Boyd, Fig. 1
`
`
`
`Boyd, Figs. 1 and 6; Boyd, 4:47-60
`(explaining the interlocking mechanism
`of the cover and the base).
`Boyd, Figs. 1 and 4; Boyd, 4:47-60
`(explaining how the latch on the cover
`engages the lugs on the base to secure
`the cover to the base).
`
`
`Boyd, Fig. 2
`
`Boyd, Fig. 2, (showing equally sapced
`receptacle openings); Boyd, 2:66-3:3
`(“The contacts of the components are
`installed within various vertical
`channels of the embodiment, which are
`adapted to receive the contacts from
`electrical components as well as mating
`terminals for those contacts.”
`
`Boyd, 4:19-21 (“Additionally,
`embodiments may use wires that are
`grouped together by way of harness or
`other means, to simplify installation.”);
`see also Boyd 4:41-46 (discussing wire
`harness).
`
`and a cover,
`the cover comprising a first surface
`substantially surrounding the perimeter
`thereof;
`the first surface conforming to a first
`edge surrounding the perimeter of the
`component attachment portion,
`the component attachment portion
`comprising a fastener secured thereto
`proximate the first edge thereof, the
`fastener selectively securing the
`component attachment portion to the
`cover having the first surface of the
`cover in engagement with the first edge
`of the component attachment portion,
`the housing further including a plurality
`of receptacle openings in a wall in the
`component attachment portion,
`wherein the receptacle openings are
`spaced-apart in rows and columns of
`openings, the spacing between the rows
`and the spacing between the columns
`being substantially the same for
`receiving and securing at least one
`electrical component within the housing
`across multiple rows or across multiple
`columns of openings; and
`a distribution harness having a plurality
`of electrical conductors, wherein the
`electrical conductors electrically
`cooperate with the receptacle openings
`to connect to the at least one electrical
`component, wherein the conductors are
`adapted to distribute power.
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`Claim 2
`
`24
`
`

`
`
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-6, 11, 19, 22 and 23
`Unpatentable as anticipated by Boyd
`
`
`The power distribution module of claim
`1, wherein the receptacle openings are
`spaced-apart in an array.
`
`Boyd, Fig. 2.
`
`Claim 3
`The power distribution module of claim
`Boyd, Fig. 2, showing the channels 30
`1, wherein the wall includes at least
`in a 4x9 array
`three columns and at least six rows.
`
`Claim 4
`The power distribution module of claim
`Boyd, Figs. 1 and 6; Boyd, Boyd 4:47-
`1, wherein the cover is a removable
`60.
`cover.
`
`Claim 5
`The power distribution module of claim
`Boyd Fig. 1, Happ Decl. (Ex. 1007),
`3, wherein the cover is configured to be
`pg. 18, ¶ 58.
`removable with one hand by a user.
`
`Claim 6
`The power distribution module of claim
`Boyd, Fig. 3; Boyd, 2:7-14 (disclosing
`1, further including a plurality of
`that fuses, relays, and diodes may be
`electrical components, each electrical
`installed on the base).
`component seated in at least one
`receptacle opening, and wherein the
`electrical components are selected from
`a group comprising diodes, relays,
`circuit breakers, and fuses.
`
`A power distribution module for a
`personal recreational vehicle
`comprising:
`a housing defining an interior, the
`housing comprising
`a cover defining an opening having a
`first surface extending along the
`perimeter thereof;
`a component attachment portion
`comprising an outer wall surrounding a
`plurality of connector receptacles, the
`
`Claim 11
`Boyd, Fig. 1; Boyd, 2:8-9.
`
`Boyd, Figs. 1 and 2; Boyd, 3:52-54
`
`Boyd, Fig. 1
`
`Boyd, Figs. 1 and 4; Boyd, 4:47-60
`(explaining how the latch on the cover
`
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`25
`
`

`
`
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-6, 11, 19, 22 and 23
`Unpatentable as anticipated by Boyd
`
`
`outer wall having a first edge
`surrounding the perimeter thereof and
`substantially conforming to the first
`surface of the cover, the component
`attachment portion having a fastener
`secured to the outer wall thereof
`proximate the first edge, the fastener
`selectively securing the component
`attachment portion to the cover having
`the first edge of the outer wall in
`engagement with the first surface; and
`a distribution harness having a plurality
`of electrical conductors, wherein the
`electrical conductors electrically
`cooperate with the connector receptacles
`to connect to at least one electrical
`component, the conductors being
`adapted to distribute power.
`
`engages the lugs on the base to secure
`the cover to the base).
`
`
`Boyd, 4:19-21 (“Additionally,
`embodiments may use wires that are
`grouped together by way of harness or
`other means, to simplify installation.”);
`see also Boyd 4:41-46 (discussing wire
`harness).
`
`A power distribution module
`comprising:
`a housing defining an interior, the
`housing comprising
`a cover;
`a component attachment portion
`comprising an outer wall surrounding a
`plurality of connector receptacles, the
`component receptacles being arranged
`equally spaced rows and equally spaced
`columns, the receptacles having an upper
`receiver and a lower receiver the cover
`securing to the component attachment
`portion over the upper receivers;
`a plurality of electrical components each
`having at least two leads inserted into
`the upper receivers of the component
`receptacles;
`{00963571.DOCX / }
`
`
`Claim 19
`Boyd, Fig. 1; Boyd, 2:8-9.
`
`Boyd, Figs. 1 and 2; Boyd, 3:52-54.
`
`Boyd, Fig. 1
`Boyd Figs. 1-3; Boyd, 3:61-4:14 (The
`electrical components are inserted into
`the upper receivers of the component
`receptacles, and the electrical
`conductors (i.e., the wires) are inserted
`into the lower receptacles).
`
`Boyd Figs. 1-3; Boyd, 3:61-4:14.
`
`26
`
`

`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-6, 11, 19, 22 and 23
`Unpatentable as anticipated by Boyd
`
`