`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PRAIRIE LAND MILLWRIGHT SERVICES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIOUX STEEL COMPANY,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 11, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before NEIL T. POWELL, JAMES A. TARTAL, and GEORGE R.
`HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`CRAIG FIESCHKO, ESQUIRE
`LAURA M. DAVIS, ESQUIRE
`DeWitt Ross & Stevens S.C.
`Two East Mifflin Street
`Suite 600
`Madison, Wisconsin 53703-2865
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`SCOTT A. MCKEOWN, ESQUIRE
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006-6807
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, January
`
`11, 2018, commencing at 1:02 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE POWELL: Good afternoon. We're here today for oral
`argument in IPR2016-01873, involving U.S. Patent Number 8,967,937 B2.
`In the hearing room with me here, I have Judge Tartal, and Judge Hoskins
`joins us remotely.
`Starting with the Petitioner, can counsel please state your names
`for the record.
`MR. FIESCHKO: I'm Craig Fieschko from DeWitt Ross and
`Stevens for the Petitioner, Prairie Land Millwright, and with me is my
`colleague, Laura Davis.
`JUDGE POWELL: Okay.
`MR. MCKEOWN: Scott McKeown of Ropes & Gray for Sioux
`
`Steel.
`
`JUDGE POWELL: Very good. Each party will have 45 minutes
`to present its case. Petitioner will start. You may reserve time for rebuttal,
`and then Patent Owner will respond.
`When you present, when you refer to materials, whether they be
`demonstratives or exhibits in the record, please tell us all very clearly what
`you're referring to so that the record will be clear. And it's also -- that's also
`important because Judge Hoskins I believe will not be able to see the screen
`here in the hearing room.
`With that, do you have any questions before we start?
`MR. FIESCHKO: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE POWELL: Petitioner, you have --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`
`JUDGE HOSKINS: Judge Powell.
`JUDGE POWELL: Yes.
`JUDGE HOSKINS: I've lost --
`JUDGE POWELL: Say again.
`JUDGE HOSKINS: I have lost the video feed.
`JUDGE POWELL: Oh, okay. Well, let's see if we can get that --
`can we get some help with that, gentlemen?
`Okay. Well, we'll all sit tight while we see if we can fix that
`technical issue.
`(A brief pause.)
`JUDGE POWELL: All right. We're back on the record.
`Petitioner, when you're ready.
`MR. FIESCHKO: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`JUDGE POWELL: Let me ask real quick, do you want to reserve
`any time for rebuttal?
`MR. FIESCHKO: Yes, this is as much a note. This hearing was
`requested by the Patent Owner. The Petitioner did not request the hearing
`because it felt that its arguments were fairly adequately covered in its prior
`filings. With that in mind, I prepared -- I can go over our case, but it's
`largely redundant of what we've done thus far and, thus, what I propose is I
`can answer any questions you might have, but, otherwise, I'd simply pass
`through it and let the Petitioner go ahead -- or let the Patent Owner go ahead
`and then reserve the remainder of time for rebuttal.
`JUDGE POWELL: Okay. Well, we can do that. Let me see,
`we're on the clock now just for a minute here, so I don't have any questions.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`
`JUDGE TARTAL: I don't either.
`JUDGE POWELL: Judge Hoskins?
`JUDGE HOSKINS: No.
`JUDGE POWELL: Okay. Well, you've got 44 minutes and 42
`seconds left for rebuttal.
`MR. FIESCHKO: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
`MR. MCKEOWN: Good afternoon. May it please the Board.
`This is not a close case. The Dixon, Berreau, Borowski grounds have
`glaring deficiencies and we need only focus on two of them today to
`demonstrate patentability.
`First, it's important to realize that the '937 patent does not simply
`claim a modular bin sweep where units are joined by a pivot. That's
`essentially the obviousness ground and I'll go through it in more detail.
`The claims recite far more specific structure and that structure is
`nowhere addressed in the grounds. Instead, what we have is an obviousness
`ground, like I said, which is purely functional which is if you have a bin
`sweep, you can segment it and between those segments you can install a
`pivot. Maybe that's the case, maybe it isn't, but that has nothing at all to do
`with our claims.
`And I think you can appreciate it and I've got -- this is the very first
`page of the Patent Owner Response. Figure 11, we know that's the pivot
`unit because Figure 11 describes a pivot unit, so that's what is claimed and
`you've got to the right there the paddles that are carried through that pivot
`unit.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`
`So, looking at the claim, Claim 1, the important feature for today's
`conversation is the last feature and the last feature I'll walk you through it. It
`begins, at least one of the at least two units. So, that's referring back to line
`1 of the claim.
`So, we're talking about modular units. So, at least one of the at
`least two units comprises a pivot unit. That's Figure 11. That pivot unit is
`configured to carry a portion of the succession of interconnected paddles.
`The pivot unit includes a pair of connected sections -- that's that pair of
`connected sections you see in Figure 11 -- with each section being connected
`to an adjacent said unit of the array.
`So, again, this is a modular unit. The other modular units are
`connected to the sections. The sections of the pivot unit, which is itself a
`modular unit and that pivot unit includes a pivot structure. A pivot structure
`and a pivot unit are different terms in the claims. They're not the same
`thing. So, a couple straightforward take-aways from the plain language of
`the claims.
`First and foremost, as I said, the pivot unit and the pivot structure
`are two different terms in the claims, and I'll say that again because that's
`key. The pivot unit and the pivot structure are two different terms. It's
`unmistakable that these terms are unambiguously utilized, not only in the
`figures, but in the claims themselves. They're two different terms. And, of
`course, aside from the facts, the figures, the plain language of the claim you
`can't construe two different terms in a claim to mean the same thing. That's
`black letter patent law.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`
`Second, as I mentioned, the pivot unit is itself a modular unit and,
`again, that bears repeating. The pivot unit itself is a modular unit and we
`know that from the language of the claims which distinguishes the sections
`of the pivot unit as compared to the other adjacent units. So, we're not
`talking about sections being synonymous with units of the claims which,
`again, is something you that you'll see in the trial ground.
`And, third and finally, as I mentioned, the pivot structure which
`joins the pair of sections is placed between those sections. That's another
`feature to keep in mind. So, before I go into the actual grounds, again, the
`pivot unit is not the same as the pivot structure. The pivot unit itself is a
`modular unit and the pivot structure connects a pair of sections of the pivot
`unit that, in turn, connect to other modular units. That's right directly, plain
`language right out of the claims. This is significant structure. It's not
`addressed anywhere in the trial grounds.
`So, let's go through the trial grounds and I think the best way to do
`that is to simply use the demonstratives we have today. So, these are
`Petitioner's demonstratives. I think we all understand how Dixon works, so I
`don't know that we necessarily need to talk about the first one, but -- so the
`argument is Dixon is a bin sweep, so no disputing that. We incorporate that
`into our patent.
`And then we have this reference Berreau and the argument is, well,
`Berreau teaches modularity, period, and the Petitioner emphasizes in their
`Petitioner Reply that they only rely on Berreau for modularity. Okay. Fair
`enough. So, the argument is that we take the Dixon bin sweep, we make it
`modular by segmenting it into sections just like Figure 6 there.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`
`And then the third ground is Borowski, and the argument there is,
`well, we need a pivot somewhere. Borowski teaches a pivot and it teaches
`these universal joints which are the pivot. So, therefore, when you combine
`the three, you segment the Dixon bin sweep, you take the pivot and you put
`it between sections. That is essentially the trial ground.
`And I think you can also see perhaps a better illustration of this in
`-- excuse me, this is page 14 of the Petitioner Reply and this Reply was
`trying to distinguish an argument about whether or not it made sense to use
`universal joints and then the argument was, well, even if one universal joint
`wouldn't work, you could use two. Setting aside the propriety of that
`specific argument and that modification to the ground, the reason I put this
`figure up here is because it shows the ground in a nutshell, that is you have
`two sweep sections and the argument is put a pivot between the two of them.
`Nowhere in the ground is there any discussion of a pivot structure
`independent of a pivot unit. Nowhere in the grounds is there any discussion
`of why you would create a separate modular unit to provide pivoting as
`opposed to this simple functional combination, which is carve up a sweep
`into sections, put a pivot between the sections. Our claims require, as I said,
`a pivot unit that is not the same as a pivot structure. The pivot unit includes
`the pivot structure.
`The pivot unit, again, is a modular unit. It's a plug-and-play unit
`that you can put anywhere in the string. You're not breaking down the
`string. You're not installing universal joints between sections. You have a
`plug-and-play module that you can put in without climbing on the bin
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`sweep, taking the whole thing down and start messing with the linkage to
`put universal joints between sections.
`There may be a lot of ways to provide pivots to bin sweeps. We
`claim a very particular one. We don't claim all function of modularity, all
`function of pivoting. We claim a pivot unit which is modular, which has a
`pivot structure with the two-pair sections connecting to adjacent modular
`units that provides pivoting in the middle there.
`JUDGE POWELL: This angle, this thread, don't we -- aren't we
`more or less talking about semantics in this regard? If I take -- given the
`one-piece structure and I had it divided into, you know, five pieces and then
`I put a hinge somewhere in that in between -- at the divide between two of
`those five pieces, why can't I point to two pieces on each side of the hinge as
`well as the hinge and say that is a unit and it's a module?
`MR. MCKEOWN: Well, I'm not sure how that relates and I'm
`trying to answer the question, but that's not in the trial grounds. What
`they've said is segment the bin sweep, put a pivot between those segments.
`There's no discussion of, well, you could provide individual sections of the
`pivot and you could connect it to the bin sweep. No. The ground is and
`what they say is obvious is to take the teachings of these three references.
`So, we're not talking about what you could do in the abstract.
`We're talking about Dixon teaches a bin sweep, Berreau teaches segments
`and Borowski teaches a pivot. They've been very clear that they're not
`relying on any of the structure of Berreau. It's just cited for modularity.
`That's right in the Petition.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`
`And Borowski, they don't want to use the universal joint. That's
`argued in their Reply as well. They're citing it for modularity and pivoting,
`period. So, where you would get a separate pivot structure and pivot unit,
`which is required by the claims, it's not in the grounds. And where you
`would get separate sections connected to that pivot point that are not
`themselves modular units, that's not in the grounds.
`That's their burden to identify these features in the claims. You
`can't just say carve up a bin sweep, modularity is known, pivoting is known,
`full stop. Our claims don't require that broad of a read. The plain language
`of the claim requires a pivot unit and a pivot structure. You will not find
`that anywhere in the trial grounds. And, again, you don't have to take my
`word for it. It's right in the demonstratives.
`Now, walking through the demonstratives -- this is slide 4 -- you
`can see that that language that I'm talking about the at least one unit being a
`pivot unit, etcetera, it's not highlighted. It's not in Dixon or Berreau.
`You go to the next slide. It's not highlighted. It's not in this
`discussion of Dixon and Berreau. And I missed one, excuse me. Go back to
`the Borowski slide. I don't know why this is jumping around, but -- it's not
`in Borowski either. So, they don't identify the unit as being anywhere. So,
`then where does it come from?
`And there's a fourth slide here discussing this Behlen reference
`which is not part of the trial grounds. It certainly doesn't show a separate
`modular unit. That's just cited for the proposition of providing pins between
`sections of a chain-link sweep. So, even if you were to modify the grounds
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`with a fourth reference, which would be inappropriate at this point, you just
`can't get there.
`JUDGE POWELL: Well, let's assume for a second that I agree
`with you that using the fourth reference is inappropriate at this point, but
`let's use that as a talking vehicle, this Behlen reference. If I look at that
`Behlen reference, which has a number of sections of this thing hinged
`together with one another, if I picked two of those sections in the middle of
`that with a hinge in there, could I -- is there a structural difference between
`that and a modular pivot unit that has sections with the pivot structure in the
`middle or are we talking about semantics?
`MR. MCKEOWN: Well, I think -- well, we would be talking
`about a different ground, number one.
`JUDGE POWELL: Yeah, that was the foundation.
`MR. MCKEOWN: Right. So I would say at this point I think
`we're past that point, you know, and I go back to that figure of their Reply
`which is -- that's the ground. So might have they argued things differently,
`might have they pointed to other structure, who knows, but that's the ground.
`So it is the burden of the Petitioner to explain what -- if you were
`looking to put pivots in a segmented sweep, you would do it exactly looking
`at Borowski the way Borowski does it, at least with location, because that's
`-- to the extent they rely on anything, Borowski teaches a pivot and it
`teaches a pivot between sections. That's the way you would do it. That's the
`obvious way to do it because that's what's taught. Segment the sections, put
`a pivot between them.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`
`Now, how you would get to, well, forget about that, let's provide a
`separate modular unit that you can plug in to provide pivoting that has the
`structure of the claims, a pivot structure separate from the pivot unit that has
`these two sections, that's their burden to bring that to the Board. So, I can't
`really answer those hypotheticals, as they're not in the record. This in a
`nutshell is the ground and there's plain structure in the claim that's nowhere
`accounted for.
`They'll be up here in a minute. You can ask them where there's
`any discussion of a pivot unit as compared to a pivot structure and you won't
`find it. They're conflated together and, frankly speaking, that's reversible
`error. I mean, those claim terms are in the claims. They have to be
`accounted for. There can't be a ground that conflates them that can find
`these claims unpatentable.
`So, as I said, at the outset this is not a close case. I mean, you can
`look at this technology as a layman and it's easy to understand and you can
`immediately come to the solution, well, looking at all of this art I could
`come up with that in hindsight using the claims as my guide, but why you
`would do it in the first place, why you would use the sections and the
`separate unit and the separate structure, that's not in the record and that's
`their burden and that's the only way that these claims can be found
`unpatentable. And because it's not in the record, the claims must stand.
`So, just concluding that portion of the presentation, as I said at the
`outset, the claimed pivot unit is not the same as the pivot structure. We can't
`conflate those terms. It's their burden to point out the difference. They
`haven't done that. The claimed pivot unit is a modular unit which provides
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`benefits. As I said, you can plug that unit in without getting down and
`changing linkages on individual sections. That's the benefit and that's
`explained in our patent. Modularity is the key and this isn't in dispute. It's
`in their declarations. It's in their Reply. There's no dispute that this is a
`modular bin sweep and that's the whole point.
`And the claims themselves, as I said, you've got a pair of sections
`that are part of that pivot unit and carry those paddles through that section.
`There's no discussion as to why you would do it that way, which is the way
`we claim it. This is not a functional claim where we say make a bin sweep
`modular, provide pivots between the sections. That's the trial ground.
`If there's no questions, I'll turn briefly to the dependent claims.
`So in addition to the arguments that I made, the dependent claims
`will stand for those reasons, but just pointing out some additional detail, for
`example, in Claim 6, which talks about pivot arms, this is, again, a further
`refinement of the pivot unit and a further refinement of the pivot structure
`within that unit. That's nowhere identified. There's a discussion of, well,
`there's some arms and tabs in the art, but there's no rationale as to why you
`would take that in the context of Claim 1, which requires these different
`structures to provide that particular structure.
`And then as to -- and that was separately argued in the Patent
`Owner Response along with Claims 16 through 18 and 21, which provide
`some additional detail as to the location of traction enhancements and
`weights, things along those lines. There's no evidence in the record as to
`those locations. There's just conclusions.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`
`In the Petition, you can look at what they did in the Petitioner
`Reply to try to buttress that, and they've taken the figures of various
`references and they've put a ruler to them and started drawing lines and
`planes. Those figures have no indication that they're drawn to dimension.
`That's improper as a matter of law. That evidence is unreliable. There's no
`evidence in the record that can be used to demonstrate those claims as
`unpatentable.
`And then, finally, I would mention, again, there's significant
`secondary considerations here. They purchased our bin sweeps. We've been
`through all that in a discovery dispute. They claim they were a re-seller.
`They've never advertised or held themselves out as a re-seller anywhere, so I
`think you can take from the purchase of our products that there was some
`significant copying interest going on there.
`So, I'll just wrap up, to me this is not a close case. Our claims
`require specific structure. In hindsight you can always say, well, maybe I
`could have taken this reference, or maybe I could have taken another
`reference. That's not their trial grounds. They can't change them now. They
`can't change it to a four-reference ground. Even if they did, Behlen is cited
`only for the proposition of a pin, nothing else, and it doesn't disclose that
`modular unit the way that it's claimed in the claims of the '937 patent.
`So unless there's further questions.
`JUDGE POWELL: Thank you.
`MR. MCKEOWN: Thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`
`MR. FIESCHKO: Your Honors, I would agree that this isn't a
`close case. I think that Claim 1 is glaringly obvious. And with all respect to
`Patent Owner's counsel, I think that our arguments are misrepresented.
`The Patent Owner asserts that the ground -- the issue of the pivot
`unit isn't addressed in our Petition. It is. It's addressed quite clearly at pages
`17 through 20, in particular, pages 19 through 20 of our Petition. It's further
`addressed in pages 11 and 12 of our Reply.
`And in there, we explain exactly what was raised by Judge Powell.
`If we take Dixon, we segment it, we modularize it as per Berreau such that
`we have multiple intermediate modules as shown in Berreau, okay, because
`that helps us make it to any length we wish, okay, because the prior art
`shows that bins can be anywhere from -- I believe I cited it in the Jackson
`reference, anywhere from 15 to a hundred feet, so we want to have multiple
`modules.
`Okay. And if we take the pivot as taught by Borowski and stick it
`between any two of those modules, any two of those intermediate modules,
`we're going to have a pivot unit. It is going to be a single unit, okay, with
`two modules next to it affixed with a pivot and affixed to two adjacent
`modules. Okay? That's exactly as you had proposed and exactly as set forth
`at pages 19 and 20 of our Petition.
`Beyond that, stepping to the dependent claims, Claim 6, if we can
`kindly -- sorry, we're just switching to a new source here.
`Oh, and just stepping back for a moment to the issue of the
`demonstratives and the allegation that one of our demonstrative pages, I
`believe it is regarding the allegation that page 6 of our demonstratives
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`illustrates that we didn't show the trial grounds, it's my understanding from
`the Trial Order that the demonstratives do not constitute evidence and we
`simply rely on our arguments as set forth in the Petition, again, particularly
`at pages 19 and 20. We show where the pivot unit is established by the
`combination of the references.
`Well, we seem to be having a bit of difficulty.
`JUDGE POWELL: Should we go off the record and see if we can
`get some technical help in there?
`MR. FIESCHKO: I don't know that it's terribly --
`JUDGE TARTAL: Counsel, we have the slides in front of us. So
`if you want to just refer to what page you're looking at, we have them
`available.
`MR. FIESCHKO: Okay. Well, if we simply refer to page 8 of the
`demonstratives, here we show in Dixon, okay, we've got this Dixon arm, tab
`and pin structure as claimed, sitting next to the receiver 85 in Figures 1 and
`4. Okay. At pages 21 and 22 of our Petition we explain how and we've got
`backup from our expert, Meyer, okay, about how it's obvious to use this as a
`pivot structure. It's ubiquitous in the sweeps. It's ubiquitous in agricultural
`equipment. It's an extremely simple structure. I would submit it's the first
`structure that someone would likely think of, if they were to think of a pivot
`structure.
`It's shown here in Schuelke. It was shown in other references as
`noted in the Petition as well. I think that one of ordinary skill would see this
`and realize that this is a useful and simple pivot structure.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`
`Okay. With regard to Dependent Claims 16 and 21 through 28,
`here it's useful to look at the demonstrative at page 9. Okay? And the
`Patent Owner alleges that we don't -- haven't established where the claimed
`structure is shown, and here we've got in page 9 of the demonstratives in the
`center there we've reproduced Figure 3 of Berreau. Okay. And at the
`right-hand side of that figure, okay, we show the tractor, the weighted
`tractor, okay, that drives the sweep about the bin radius.
`Okay. And if we look -- and actually it probably would be best if
`we could pull a copy of Berreau that's Exhibit 1013 so we can see it in
`greater size. I'm sorry, you don't have that.
`Well, anyways, if we were to look at Berreau at Exhibit 1013,
`okay, at the right-hand side it shows a weight hanging on the arm there.
`Okay. And if you were to look, take a close look at that and look at the
`plane of the bar upon which the suitcase weight hangs, okay, it looks at least
`to me from visual inspection that the plane of that bar on which the weight
`hangs is clearly behind -- all the way behind the rear wheel. Okay?
`You can also see it in the Sudenga reference that's shown at the
`right-hand side of page 9. And there, if you look at the bottom of that,
`there's an enlarged picture of the structure and we see the plate. Okay.
`There, too, at least to me, it looks like the plate that would support the
`weights sitting clearly behind the rear wheels.
`Now, apart from my view of that, okay, the Meyer declaration, our
`expert, Meyer, at Section 54 shows that Meyer as one of ordinary skill, he
`interpreted Berreau and Sudenga in this manner as having the weight
`situated entirely behind the rear wheel. Okay. And even if it's not
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`completely behind the wheels, let's assume for the sake of argument that that
`plate, okay, the suitcase weight when it's hung on there isn't completely
`behind the rear wheel.
`Okay. Section 38 of the Meyer declaration, which is cited in our
`materials, okay, reviews other prior weighted sweep tractors in the field,
`okay, put on other sweeps and they have weights sitting in front of the rear
`wheels. They've got weights sitting on top of the rear wheels.
`They've got other -- there's another reference, I believe it's Weikel,
`and it's cited in our materials and I'm afraid I do not have the exhibit number
`immediately in front of me, but it's in our documents. It is another one that
`shows weights behind the tractor wheels.
`So, even if we assume for the sake of argument that Berreau and
`Sudenga do not show weights all completely behind the wheels, okay, I
`would submit that with this great weight of -- with this great range of
`showing weights in front of the wheels, behind the wheels, on top of the
`wheels, situating it behind the wheels is simply one of that number of finite,
`predictable solutions that an artisan would choose in accordance with KSR.
`Okay? And that's essentially all I have to say, unless you have questions.
`JUDGE POWELL: I have one question. Just a second here, the
`claim language I want to talk about. That last bit, the chunk that we're all
`concerned about recites that the pivot unit is configured to carry a portion of
`the succession of interconnected paddles.
`MR. FIESCHKO: Yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`
`JUDGE POWELL: Can you point me to the best part of your
`briefing that explains how that comes to pass in the system that is obvious,
`allegedly obvious?
`MR. FIESCHKO: Well, initially that point is partially covered at
`the top of page 20. Okay? But, otherwise, I mean, stepping back to the
`discussion of Dixon and Berreau, okay, if we take Dixon's sweep and we
`modularize it, we cut that central portion, we cut it up between the power
`unit on one end, the drive unit on the other end and then modularize it in the
`middle with those box-like sections in between, okay, those intermediate
`portions are naturally going to be carrying the paddles.
`JUDGE POWELL: Would they support the weight of the paddles?
`MR. FIESCHKO: Well, yes. I mean, if we take Dixon, I mean, if
`we could put -- if you look to the first demonstrative, page 1, and if you look
`particularly at Figure 4. Okay. Let's say we modularize, first of all, at the
`left end so that we have the power unit, okay, on the right end, though, with
`the drive unit where the tractor isn't shown. It's shown in Figure 5. We
`segment it there and then we can chop it however many times we want in the
`middle, okay, to make, you know, a sweep of whatever length we want, and
`all we're doing is we're just connecting sections or sections of boxes. Okay?
`I'm not arguing that we need to incorporate Berreau's truss
`structure, though even there I don't see any reason why we couldn't if we
`didn't want to, but it seems to me like it would support the weight of the
`paddles just as much as Dixon is shown here.
`JUDGE POWELL: The assembly as a whole would.
`MR. FIESCHKO: Yes, the assembly as a whole.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`
`JUDGE POWELL: Okay. And so -- all right. So that's the
`argument with respect to how the pivot unit is configured to carry portions,
`succession of interconnected paddles.
`MR. FIESCHKO: Yes. Essentially if we take Figure 4 and we
`modularize it, we're just taking it where -- instead of having it as a unitary
`piece as depicted, okay, we are making it of separate sections affixing them
`together. Okay. And then between any two of those intermediate sections
`or maybe more, okay, we insert a pivot, we're going to have a pivot unit.
`JUDGE POWELL: That's all the questions I have. Do either of
`my -- uh-oh, we couldn't hear you there, Judge Hoskins.
`JUDGE HOSKINS: No questions from here. Thank you.
`JUDGE POWELL: Okay.
`JUDGE TARTAL: I have no questions.
`JUDGE POWELL: All right. Well, the case is submitted and we
`are adjourned. Thank you all for your time this afternoon.
`(Concluded at 1:42 p.m.)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01873
`Patent 8,967,937 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Craig Fieschko
`DEWITT ROSS & STEVENS S.C.
`cf@dewittross.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert Eichenberger
`Robert Theuerkauf
`MIDDLETON REUTLINGER
`rhe@middletonlaw.com
`rjt@middletonlaw.com
`
`Scott Mckeown
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`scott.mckeown@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
