Attorney Docket No. POLY187IPR
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`Polygroup Limited (MCO),
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Willis Electric Company, Limited,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00801
`Patent 8,454,187
`__________________
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Willis Exhibit 1018-1
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................1
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE: 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ...................4
`THE BOARD SHOULD NOT DENY THIS PETITION UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d)..........................................................................................4
`IV. BACKGROUND OF THE ’187 PATENT AND PRIOR ART.....................8
`A.
`Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’187 Patent .....................8
`A.
`Summary of the Asserted Prior Art......................................................9
`Miller: U.S. Patent No. 4,020,201 (Ex. 1007) ...........................9
`1.
`Otto: German Patent No. DE 84 36 328.2 (Ex. 1008).............10
`2.
`Jumo: French Patent No. 1,215,214 (Ex. 1009) ......................11
`3.
`Pan: U.S. Patent No. 6,752,512 (Ex. 1010).............................12
`4.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION: 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ...............................12
`A.
`Applicable Law ..................................................................................12
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................12
`C.
`Construction of Claim Terms.............................................................12
`1.
`“light string” [all Challenged Claims] .....................................13
`2.
`“the electrical connection” being made “independent of
`the rotational orientation” [all Challenged Claims].................13
`“in at least four different rotational orientations”
`[Claim 1] ..................................................................................14
`“wiring assembly” [Claim 1] ...................................................15
`4.
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED GROUNDS.....................16
`A.
`Ground 1: Independent Claims 1 and 7 Are Obvious Under Pre-
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over Miller in View of Pan, Otto, and
`Jumo ...................................................................................................16
`1.
`Obviousness Standards and Analysis ......................................16
`Differences Between Claims 1 and 7 and Miller,
`(a)
`Pan, Otto, and Jumo ......................................................17
`
`3.
`
`i
`
`Willis Exhibit 1018-2
`
`

`
`2.
`
`(c)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`(b) Obviousness Rationale for Why a POSA Would
`Have Enhanced Miller with Pan, Otto, and Jumo
`to Arrive at the Claimed Subject Matter........................23
`Obviousness Rationale for How a POSA Would
`Have Enhanced Miller with Pan, Otto, and Jumo
`to Arrive at the Claimed Subject Matter........................25
`Rule 104(b)(4) Analysis—Each Element of Claim 7 is
`Found in Miller in View of Pan, Otto, and Jumo....................27
`(a)
`[7.P] A lighted artificial tree..........................................27
`(b)
`[7.1] A first tree portion including a first trunk
`portion............................................................................27
`[7.2] A first plurality of branches joined to the first
`trunk portion ..................................................................27
`[7.3] A first light string . . .............................................28
`[7.4] [A first light string] . . . affixed to a portion of
`the first plurality of branches.........................................28
`[7.5] The first trunk portion having a first trunk
`body ...............................................................................28
`[7.6] A trunk connector assembly, at least a portion
`of the trunk connector assembly housed within the
`first trunk body and . . ...................................................28
`[7.7] [A trunk connector assembly] . . . electrically
`connected to the first light string...................................29
`[7.8] A second tree portion including a second
`trunk portion ..................................................................30
`[7.9] A second plurality of branches joined to the
`second trunk portion ......................................................30
`[7.10] A second light string . . ......................................31
`[7.11] [A second light string] . . . Affixed to a
`portion of the second plurality of branches ...................31
`[7.12] The second trunk portion having a trunk
`body ...............................................................................31
`
`(k)
`(l)
`
`(h)
`
`(i)
`
`(j)
`
`(m)
`
`ii
`
`Willis Exhibit 1018-3
`
`

`
`(n)
`
`(o)
`
`(p)
`
`(q)
`
`(r)
`
`(s)
`
`[7.13] A trunk connector assembly, at least a
`portion of the trunk connector assembly housed
`within the second trunk portion . . ................................31
`[7.14] [A trunk connector assembly] . . .
`electrically connected to the second light string ...........32
`[7.15] Wherein the second tree portion is
`mechanically and electrically connectable to the
`first tree portion by coupling a lower end of the
`second trunk body to an upper end of the first
`trunk body along a common vertical axis at a
`rotational orientation of the first trunk portion
`relative the second trunk portion about the
`common vertical axis . . ................................................33
`[7.16] . . . Thereby causing the trunk connector of
`the first trunk portion to make an electrical
`connection with the trunk connector of the second
`trunk portion within a trunk interior defined by the
`first trunk body and the second trunk body...................34
`[7.17] The electrical connection being made when
`the lower end of the second trunk body is coupled
`to the upper end of the first trunk body .........................35
`[7.18] The electrical connection being independent
`of the rotational orientation of the first trunk
`portion relative the second trunk portion about the
`common vertical axis.....................................................36
`Rule 104(b)(4) Analysis—Each Element of Claim 1 is
`Found in Miller in View of Pan, Otto, and Jumo....................37
`(a)
`[1.P] A lighted artificial tree..........................................37
`(b)
`[1.1] A first tree portion including a first trunk
`portion............................................................................37
`[1.2] A first plurality of branches joined to the first
`trunk portion ..................................................................37
`[1.3] A first light string . . .............................................37
`[1.4] [A first light string] . . . Affixed to a portion
`of the first plurality of branches ....................................37
`
`(d)
`(e)
`
`3.
`
`(c)
`
`iii
`
`Willis Exhibit 1018-4
`
`

`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`(h)
`
`(i)
`
`(j)
`
`(k)
`
`(l)
`(m)
`
`(n)
`
`(o)
`
`(p)
`
`(q)
`
`(r)
`
`[1.5] The first trunk portion having a first trunk
`wall defining a first trunk interior .................................38
`[1.6] A first trunk electrical connector . . . the first
`trunk electrical connector including a first
`electrical contact and a second electrical contact,
`and..................................................................................38
`[1.7] A first trunk wiring assembly . . . the first
`trunk wiring assembly electrically connectable to
`the first light string and the first trunk electrical
`connector........................................................................38
`[1.8] . . . Wherein at least a portion of the first
`trunk wiring assembly is located within the first
`trunk interior ..................................................................39
`[1.9] A second tree portion including a second
`trunk portion ..................................................................40
`[1.10] A second plurality of branches joined to the
`second trunk portion ......................................................40
`[1.11] A second light string . . ......................................40
`[1.12] [A second light string]. . . Affixed to a
`portion of the second plurality of branches ...................40
`[1.13] The second trunk portion having a second
`trunk wall defining a second trunk interior ...................40
`[1.14] A second trunk electrical connector . . . the
`second trunk electrical connector including a first
`electrical contact and a second electrical contact..........40
`[1.15] A second trunk wiring assembly . . . the
`second trunk wiring assembly electrically
`connectable to the second light string and the
`second trunk electrical connector ..................................41
`[1.16] . . . Wherein at least a portion of the second
`trunk wiring assembly is located within the second
`trunk interior ..................................................................42
`[1.17] Wherein the second tree portion is
`mechanically coupleable to the first tree portion
`about a central vertical axis ...........................................42
`
`iv
`
`Willis Exhibit 1018-5
`
`

`
`(s)
`
`(t)
`
`(u)
`
`(v)
`(w)
`
`(x)
`
`(y)
`
`[1.18] Wherein the lower end of the second trunk
`portion is configured to couple the upper end of
`the first trunk portion in at least four different
`rotational orientations of the first trunk portion
`relative the second trunk portion about the central
`vertical axis....................................................................42
`[1.19] The second tree portion is electrically
`connectable to the first tree portion such that a
`portion of the first trunk electrical connector of the
`first trunk portion contacts a portion of the second
`trunk electrical connector of the second trunk
`portion when the first tree portion and the second
`tree portion are mechanically coupled...........................43
`[1.20] The second electrical contact of the first
`trunk connector makes an electrical connection
`with the second electrical contact of the second
`trunk connector . . . ........................................................44
`[1.21] . . . At a point along the central vertical axis ......45
`[1.22] The first electrical contact of the trunk
`connector of the first tree portion makes an
`electrical connection with the first electrical
`contact of the trunk connector of the second tree
`portion . . .......................................................................48
`[1.23] . . . Thereby creating an electrical
`connection between the first wiring assembly and
`the second wiring assembly...........................................49
`[1.24] The electrical connection between the first
`electrical contacts of the first and second tree
`portions and the electrical connection between the
`second electrical contacts of the first and second
`tree portions are made independent of the
`rotational orientations of the first trunk portion
`relative the second trunk portion about the central
`vertical axis when the lower end of the second
`trunk portion is coupled to the upper end of the
`first trunk portion...........................................................50
`
`v
`
`Willis Exhibit 1018-6
`
`

`
`VII. MANDATORY NOTICES, STANDING, AND FEES...............................51
`A.
`Real Parties-In-Interest: 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1).................................51
`B.
`Related Matters: 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ............................................52
`C.
`Petitioner’s Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service
`Information: 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4) ......................................53
`Grounds for Standing: 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)....................................53
`D.
`Payment of Fees: 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................53
`E.
`VIII. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................54
`
`vi
`
`Willis Exhibit 1018-7
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966)...........................................................................................16
`In re Aslanian,
`590 F.2d 911 (C.C.P.A. 1979).......................................................................10
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. granted (U.S. 2016)...........................12
`In re Keller,
`642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981).......................................................................27
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .....................................................................19
`In re Sneed,
`710 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .....................................................................27
`Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
`485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................4
`Perfect Web v. InfoUSA,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 25
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................4
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions
`
`Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.,
`IPR2015-00811, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 11, 2015) ...........................................5
`
`Apotex, Inc. v. Wyeth LLC,
`IPR2015-00873, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 16, 2015) ...........................................7
`
`Cepheid v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2015-00881, Paper 9 (PTAB Sept. 17, 2015) ...........................................5
`
`Conopco, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Co.,
`IPR2014-00628, Paper 23 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2015)..........................................7
`
`vii
`
`Willis Exhibit 1018-8
`
`

`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`IPR2013-00324, Paper 19 (PTAB Nov. 21, 2013) (informative opinion)..5, 6
`
`Kaiser Aluminum v. Constellium Rolled Prods. Ravenswood, LLC,
`IPR2014-01002, Paper 11 (PTAB Dec. 29, 2014)..........................................7
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00487, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 11, 2014) (informative opinion)....5, 6
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2014-00436, Paper 17 (PTAB June 19, 2014) (informative opinion) ......6
`
`Micron Tech., Inc. v. Mass. Inst. of Tech.,
`IPR2015-01087, Paper 12 (PTAB Nov. 5, 2015)............................................8
`
`Prism Pharma Co., Ltd. v. Choongwae Pharma Corp.,
`IPR2014-00315, Paper 14 (PTAB July 8, 2014) (informative opinion).........5
`
`Research in Motion Corp. v. Multimedia Ideas LLC,
`IPR2013-00036, Paper 15 (PTAB Mar. 18, 2015)..........................................8
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00702, Paper 13 (PTAB July 24, 2014) (informative opinion).......5
`
`Unilever, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Co.,
`IPR2014-00506, Paper 17 (PTAB July 7, 2014) (informative opinion).....5, 6
`
`Valeo N. Am., Inc. v. Magna Elecs., Inc.,
`IPR2014-01203, Paper 13 (PTAB Jan. 28, 2015) ...........................................7
`
`Wavemarket Inc. v. Locationet Sys., Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00920, Paper 11 (PTAB Dec. 16, 2014)..........................................7
`
`Statutes
`Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................... 9, 10, 11, 12
`Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).......................................................................................4
`Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112.........................................................................................13
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ...................................................................................................13
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................ 4, 7, 8
`
`viii
`
`Willis Exhibit 1018-9
`
`

`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................................................................................ 50, 51
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 .....................................................................................................52
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ...................................................................................................52
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ........................................................................................ 4, 27, 52
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedures
`MPEP § 2111…………………………………………………………………passim
`
`ix
`
`Willis Exhibit 1018-10
`
`

`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS1
`
`Exhibit
`No. 2
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`USPN 8,454,187 to Chen (the ’187 Patent)
`(Patent under Inter Partes Review)
`
`File History for USPN 8,454,187
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review from
`IPR2014-01264
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`from IPR2014-01264
`
`Decision on Institution from
`IPR2014-01264
`
`Declaration of Mike Wood in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`the ’187 Patent
`
`Publication
`Date (unless
`otherwise
`noted)
`May 1, 2012
`(filing date)
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`Type of
`Prior Art
`(Pre-AIA
`35 U.S.C.)
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`1007
`
`USPN 4,020,201 to Miller (Miller)
`
`Apr. 26, 1977
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`1008
`
`DE 84 36 328.2 to Otto (Otto)
`(with German version; English translation;
`and Translation Certification of Wheatleigh
`Dunham per 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b))
`
`Apr. 4, 1985
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`1 For the Board’s convenience, this Table of Exhibits includes all references cited
`in this Petition and in the corresponding Expert Declaration (Ex. 1006).
`Accordingly, the Table of Exhibits in the Petition and Declaration are identical.
`2 For ease of review, Petitioner adopts the following citation convention for this
`Petition and accompanying Declaration. U.S. patent references, English-language
`foreign references, and the concurrently filed Declaration are cited by the
`reference’s internal column:line, page:line, or ¶ number (not stamped pagination).
`Foreign-language patent references/translations and supporting papers (file history,
`Prior IPR papers, definitions) are cited by stamped pagination number.
`
`x
`
`Willis Exhibit 1018-11
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No. 2
`
`Description
`
`FR 1,215,214 to Jumo (Jumo)
`(with French version; English translation;
`and Translation Certification of Donald
`W. Hanley per 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b))
`
`Publication
`Date (unless
`otherwise
`noted)
`
`Type of
`Prior Art
`(Pre-AIA
`35 U.S.C.)
`
`Apr. 15, 1960
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`USPN 6,752,512 to Pan (Pan)
`
`USPN 7,132,139 to Yang (Yang)
`
`June 22, 2004
`
`Nov. 7, 2006
`
`USPN 7,066,739 to McLeish (McLeish)
`
`June 27, 2006
`
`USPN 2,563,713 to Frei et al. (Frei)
`
`USPN 735,010 to Zahl (Zahl)
`
`USPN 1,495,695 to Karr (Karr)
`
`USPN 1,656,148 to Harris (Harris)
`
`Aug. 7, 1951
`
`July 28, 1903
`
`May 27, 1924
`
`Jan. 10, 1928
`
`USPN 1,974,472 to Seghers (Seghers)
`
`Sept. 25, 1934
`
`USPN 2,188,529 to Corina (Corina)
`
`Jan. 30, 1940
`
`USPN 2,857,506 to Minteer (Minteer)
`
`Oct. 21, 1958
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`USPN 3,131,112 to Abramson
`(Abramson)
`
`USPN 3,970,834 to Smith (Smith)
`
`USPN 3,985,924 to Pritza (Pritza)
`
`Apr. 28, 1964
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`July 20, 1976
`
`Oct. 12, 1976
`
`USPN 4,072,857 to DeVicaris (DeVicaris) Feb. 7, 1978
`
`US 2007/0253191 to Chin et al. (Chin)
`
`Nov. 1, 2007
`
`WO 96/26661 to Lala (Lala)
`
`Sept. 6, 1996
`
`USPN 5,776,559 to Woolford (Woolford)
`
`July 7, 1998
`
`xi
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`Willis Exhibit 1018-12
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No. 2
`
`Description
`
`1027
`
`US 2007/0230174 to Hicks et al. (Hicks)
`
`1028
`
`USPN 8,053,042 to Loomis (Loomis)
`
`Publication
`Date (unless
`otherwise
`noted)
`Oct. 4, 2007
`
`July 14, 2009
`(earliest claimed
`priority date)
`
`Type of
`Prior Art
`(Pre-AIA
`35 U.S.C.)
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`1029
`
`USPN 3,521,216 to Tolegian (Tolegian)
`
`July 21, 1970
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`US 2010/0099287 to Colburn et al.
`(Colburn)
`
`US 2010/0159713 to Nishihira et al.
`(Nishihira)
`
`USPN 3,107,966 to Bonhomme
`(Bonhomme 966)
`
`USPN 3,470,527 to Bonhomme
`(Bonhomme 527)
`
`Oct. 2, 2008
`(earliest claimed
`priority date)
`
`Dec. 19, 2008
`(earliest claimed
`priority date)
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`Oct. 22, 1963
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`Sept. 30, 1969
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`USPN 3,585,564 to Skjervoll (Skjervoll)
`
`June 15, 1971
`
`USPN 5,091,834 to Kao et al. (Kao)
`
`Feb. 25, 1992
`
`USPN 5,409,403 to Falossi et al. (Falossi) Apr. 25, 1995
`
`EP 1,049,206 to Nania et al. (Nania)
`
`USPN 7,207,844 to Peng (Peng)
`
`USPN 438,310 to Edison (Edison)
`
`USPN 7,311,566 to Dent (Dent)
`
`GB 2 169 198 to Fung (Fung)
`
`Nov. 2, 2000
`
`Apr. 24, 2007
`
`Oct. 14, 1890
`
`Dec. 25, 2007
`
`July 9, 1986
`
`USPN 8,454,187 to Chen (’187 Patent)
`
`N/A
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`N/A
`
`xii
`
`Willis Exhibit 1018-13
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No. 2
`
`Description
`
`1043
`
`USPN 8,974,072 to Chen (’072 Patent)
`
`1044
`
`Declaration of Mike Wood in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review from
`IPR2014-01264
`
`1045
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Mike Wood
`
`Publication
`Date (unless
`otherwise
`noted)
`N/A
`
`Type of
`Prior Art
`(Pre-AIA
`35 U.S.C.)
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`xiii
`
`Willis Exhibit 1018-14
`
`

`
`Petitioner Polygroup requests Inter Partes Review (IPR) of Claims 1 and 7
`
`(the Challenged Claims) of USPN 8,454,187 (the ’187 Patent) (Ex. 1001).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Artificial Christmas trees with lights have been well-known for over one
`
`hundred years (e.g., Ex. 1014 (patent from 1903)), and have not changed
`
`dramatically in that time. Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 27–56. As early as the 1920s, artificial trees
`
`already had detachable trunk sections with collapsible branches for convenient
`
`storage and shipping, though the trees were lit by candles. See, e.g., Ex. 1015, Figs.
`
`1–5; Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 27–40. Over time, candles were replaced by electrically powered
`
`lights and corresponding wires. Ex. 1008, 16:30–32; Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 27–56, 76–81.
`
`As with the wiring of many electrical devices in the home, there was a desire
`
`to hide at least a portion of the wiring within the device. Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 29–56. By
`
`the mid-1920s, these trees contained electric circuits connected to light lamps on
`
`branches, with hollow trunk portions hiding corresponding electrical wires. Ex.
`
`1016 (Harris), Figs. 2–4; Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 29–56. Indeed, the ’187 Patent specifically
`
`references Harris, acknowledging that electrically connecting trunk sections that
`
`provide electricity to lights on branches and hide the corresponding electrical wires
`
`within the trunks has long been known in the art. Ex. 1001, 2:4–17. Similarly,
`
`Miller teaches a tree with “readily assembled hollow sleeved trunk members
`
`having wiring and limb sockets removably arranged therein so that the wiring is
`
`1
`
`Willis Exhibit 1018-15
`
`

`
`housed and concealed within the trunk members,” and with light strings positioned
`
`on branches. Ex. 1007, 1:48–56, Figs. 2–3; Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 115–20.
`
`In addition to improving electrical system details, artisans began modifying
`
`the connections between trunks for ease of assembly. See, e.g., Ex. 1008 (Otto),
`
`18:22–27. Otto, for example, uses coaxial electrical and mechanical connections
`
`between the individual trunk sections (and between the trunks and branches) to
`
`transmit power through the tree and to the lights. Id. 20:23–21:2, Figs. 1–2; Ex.
`
`1006, ¶¶ 26–56, 121–25. These connections simplify assembly, allowing users to
`
`simultaneously connect
`
`the mechanical and electrical components, while also
`
`having multiple options for rotationally aligning the trunks. Ex. 1008, 18:22–27,
`
`Figs. 1–2. Notably, this is the same problem purportedly addressed by the ’187
`
`Patent (albeit many years later). Compare id. with Ex. 1001, 2:29–35, 15:45–54.
`
`Of course, electrical and mechanical connectors that connect independent of
`
`rotational orientation, such as in Otto, are not unique to the artificial tree art. Ex.
`
`1006, ¶¶ 62–75. Jumo,
`
`for example,
`
`teaches connectors with simultaneous
`
`electrical and mechanical connections for use in “a user device that can be of
`
`absolutely any type whatsoever.” Ex. 1009, 5:18–20, Figs. 1–4; Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 119–
`
`25. These connectors have broad applicability to devices where concurrent
`
`mechanical and electrical connection with multiple rotational positions would be
`
`helpful. The prior art shows this broad applicability extends to, among other things,
`
`2
`
`Willis Exhibit 1018-16
`
`

`
`sections of a light fixture (Ex. 1009, 5:18–20, Figs. 1, 4) and between trunks of an
`
`artificial tree (Ex. 1008, 18:19–27, Figs. 1–2). Ex 1006, ¶¶ 62–75, 114–24.
`
`Despite this prior art, the ’187 Patent issued with claims to nothing more
`
`than a common artificial tree with detachable trunk sections having electrical and
`
`mechanical connections “independent of” rotational orientation. This rotational
`
`independence is the only purportedly novel feature claimed (Ex. 1002, 223),
`
`though Miller and Otto taught it years before the ’187 Patent was filed. Ex. 1006,
`
`¶¶ 108–18.
`
`Indeed,
`
`the ’187 Patent claims nothing more than the simple
`
`combination of a known connector in a known artificial tree. All other claim
`
`elements (trunk sections, branches,
`
`light strings, wiring assemblies) are also
`
`common components that had been known for years.
`
`The similarities between the ’187 Patent and
`
`Miller are striking. Compare Ex. 1001, Fig. 2 (at
`
`right) with Ex. 1007, Fig. 2 (at right). Miller has all
`
`elements of the Challenged Claims with the possible
`
`exception of details of the electrical connectors or
`
`how light strings are secured or attached to the
`
`branches. But those features were already known in the art (e.g., Otto, Jumo, Pan),
`
`and a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention (a
`
`POSA) would have used that art to enhance Miller. Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 131–228.
`
`3
`
`Willis Exhibit 1018-17
`
`

`
`II.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE: 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`
`Petitioner challenges independent Claims 1 and 7 on the following ground:
`
`Ground Claims Pre-AIA
`35 U.S.C. Basis References
`Miller in view of Pan, Otto, and Jumo
`1
`1 and 7
`§ 103(a)
`Ground 1 shows how a POSA would have improved Miller’s artificial tree by
`
`using Pan’s light-string connector to secure light strings to the tree’s branches, and
`
`been motivated by Otto to enhance Miller’s trunk sections with the multi-position,
`
`electrical-mechanical connector of Jumo, rendering Claims 1 and 7 obvious.3
`
`III. THE BOARD SHOULD NOT DENY THIS PETITION UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 325(D)
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the Board’s consideration of a petition “may take
`
`into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or
`
`3 Petitioner reserves the right to fully rebut any secondary consideration evidence
`
`provided in this IPR. Petitioner cannot address such evidence now because none
`
`has been provided. But if provided, it cannot “be accorded substantial weight,”
`
`unless Patent Owner “establish[es] a nexus between the evidence and the merits of
`
`the claimed invention.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010). Moreover, such evidence is immaterial in the face of Petitioner’s strong
`
`showing of obviousness, which overcomes secondary considerations. See, e.g.,
`
`Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`4
`
`Willis Exhibit 1018-18
`
`

`
`substantially the same prior art or arguments were previously presented to the
`
`Office.” Although the ’187 Patent was involved in a prior IPR and reexamination,4
`
`the Board should institute the instant Petition because it includes substantially new
`
`art and new arguments, including new grounds that demonstrate how the simplistic
`
`core features of the independent claims are obvious in view of the prior art.
`
`The Board usually invokes § 325(d) when a later petition has significant
`
`overlap with earlier proceedings. For example, the Board has denied institution of
`
`petitions that rely on the identical art as earlier petitions (see Informative Opinions
`
`IPR2014-00487, Paper 8;
`
`IPR2014-00702, Paper 13),
`
`regurgitate art and
`
`arguments from prosecution or a previous petition (IPR2014-00315, Paper 14
`
`(Informative)), or challenge a patent that was thoroughly vetted in an instituted IPR
`
`or Federal Circuit appeal. See Informative Opinions IPR2014-00702, Paper 13;
`
`IPR2013-00324, Paper 19. In contrast, the Board has not invoked § 325(d) when
`
`later petitions rely on new art or only minimally on previously cited art. IPR2015-
`
`00881, Paper 9; IPR2015-00811, Paper 8. Such is the case here.
`
`This Petition does not challenge the same set of claims, use the same set of
`
`art, assert the same grounds, repeat the same arguments, or merely fill a noted
`
`4 See IPR2014-01264 (the Prior IPR), Petition for Inter Partes Review (Prior
`
`Petition, Ex. 1003) (filed in name of Polygroup Ltd.); Ex Parte Reexamination No.
`
`90/020,074 (Petitioner did not initiate or participate in). See Parts VII.A–B.
`
`5
`
`Willis Exhibit 1018-19
`
`

`
`deficiency in a prior petition. Cf. Informative Opinions IPR2014-00506, Paper 17;
`
`IPR2014-00436, Paper 17; IPR2014-00487, Paper 8; & IPR2013-00324, Paper 19.
`
`The only reference in this Petition that has any overlap with the Prior
`
`Petition is Otto (Ex. 1008)—and this Petition relies minimally on Otto. Here, Otto
`
`is provided as extra evidentiary support to bolster the already strong argument for
`
`why a POSA would have been motivated to enhance the tree trunk connectors of
`
`Miller with the multi-position connector of Jumo—a reference that can be used in a
`
`device of “absolutely any type whatsoever.” Ex. 1009, 5:18–20. But this is not the
`
`only difference between the Prior Petition and this Petition. A comparison of the
`
`two Petitions will show that they have almost no similarities.
`
`For example,
`
`the Prior Petition relied on 2 primary references and 5
`
`secondary references in proposing 10 grounds against all 15 claims. Ex. 1003, 8–9.
`
`In contrast, this Petition relies on only one primary reference (Miller)—uncovered
`
`by Petitioner after filing the Prior Petition, cf. IPR2014-00506 (Informative). This
`
`Petition relies on only 3 secondary references: Jumo (for multi-position
`
`connectors), Pan (for light-string/branch fastener), and Otto. While Otto was used
`
`extensively in the Prior Petition for its teaching of trunks, branches, wiring, etc., it
`
`is used here only to show the availability of trunk connectors that provide
`
`simultaneous electrical and mechanical connections at a multitude of rotational
`
`positions of the trunks, which bolsters an already strong evidentiary case for why a
`
`6
`
`Willis Exhibit 1018-20
`
`

`
`POSA would have been motivated to enhance Miller’s artificial tree with a similar
`
`concept via the multi-position Jumo connectors. C.f. IPR2014-00920, Paper 11;
`
`IPR2014-01002, Paper 11; IPR2014-01203, Paper 13.
`
`Moreover, the Board has allowed follow-on Petitions when the prior petition
`
`was denied without substantive evaluation of inventive aspects of the challenged
`
`claims. IPR2015-00873, Paper 8. The Board denied the Prior Petition solely on the
`
`construction of “light string” (and whether the cited art had light strings that could
`
`be “positioned over a plurality of branches”). See Ex. 1005, 5–11.5 Thus, the Board
`
`did not reach a determination of the patentability of the allegedly inventive aspects
`
`of the ’187 Patent when denying the Prior IPR’s institution.
`
`Finally, this Petition’s measured approach (with just one ground against only
`
`the independent claims) minimizes the burden placed on Patent Owner and the
`
`Board and “promotes the efficient and economical use of Board and party
`
`resources.” IPR2014-00628, Paper 23. Notably, Patent Owner did not incur the
`
`expense of an IPR trial, nor did it have to defend the mechanical/electrical
`
`connections at the core of the ’187 Patent in prior proceedings.6 And after the Prior
`
`5 Putting light strings on branches is not inventive. The ’187 Patent itself confirms
`
`that “[t]ypical” artificial trees had “multiple standard light strings distributed about
`
`the exterior of the tree” and “clipped to branch structures.” Ex. 1001, 1:33–37.
`
`6 The Board has been reluctant to apply § 325(d) based on earlier reexaminations,
`
`7
`
`Willis Exhibit 1018-21
`
`

`
`Petition was denied, Patent Owner sued Petitioner for infringement of the ’187
`
`Patent, so adjudicating the patentability of the Challenged Claims is unavoidable.
`
`Hence, the Board should decline to exercise its discretion under § 325(d).
`
`IV. BACKGROUND OF THE ’187 PATENT AND PRIOR ART
`
`A.
`
`Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’187 Patent
`
`The alleged invention of the ’187 Patent relates to an artificial tree with trunk
`
`sections that mechanically and electrically connect in multiple rotational positions.
`
`Ex. 1001. Yet, artificial trees were assembled in sections that mechanically and
`
`electrically connect long before the ’187 Patent, with many known choices to
`
`accomplish such coupling. Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 27–56, 108–18. Indeed, this sort of
`
`“independent” connection exi