`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
`FREDMAN BROS. FURNITURE COMPANY, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BEDGEAR, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`IPR2017-00351
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
` ____________
`
`
` PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00351 Petitioner’s Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 2
`I.
`II. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................... 2
`A. Claim Construction ....................................................................................... 2
`1. “gusset” (independent claim 1) .................................................................. 2
`2. “open cell construction” (dependent claims 4, 14, 15, 18) ......................... 2
`3. “substantially greater” (dependent claims 14, 15) ...................................... 6
`4. “configured to have air enter the cavity through pores in the first and
`gusset” (independent claim 1) .................................................................... 6
`B. Level of Skill of a POSITA ........................................................................... 7
`C. All Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable ..................................................... 8
`1. Rasmussen Anticipates Claim 1, as well as Claims 4, 7-10, and 13 .......... 8
`2. Rasmussen Anticipates Claims 2 and 3 .................................................... 11
`3. Rasmussen Anticipates Claims 14 and 15 ................................................ 12
`4. Rasmussen Anticipates Claim 18 ............................................................. 14
`5. Rasmussen Anticipates Claim 17 ............................................................. 21
`6. Rasmussen Anticipates Claim 20 ............................................................. 22
`7. Claims 5, 6, 12, and 19 are Obvious ......................................................... 24
`III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 26
`
`second panels and have the air exit the cavity through pores in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2017-00351 Petitioner’s Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`
`Patent Owner (“PO”) twists and turns to try to avoid the fact that the
`
`Rasmussen prior art precisely teaches the Challenged Claims’ “instrumental”
`
`highly porous gusset for lateral ventilation. PO improperly imports numerous
`
`limitations into the claims through its convoluted series of “open cell construction”
`
`arguments, repeatedly faults the prior art for not using the exact same words as the
`
`claims, and provides misleading purported counter-examples of so-called “highly
`
`porous” textiles that fail to demonstrate a lack of anticipation. None of PO’s
`
`arguments succeed in distinguishing the prior art.
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`1. “gusset” (independent claim 1)
`
`The Board determined no construction was necessary and Patent Owner
`
`(“PO”) agreed. Paper 8 (“Decision”), 6; Paper 14 (“POR”), 37. Petitioner also
`
`agrees express construction is unnecessary for this proceeding, as PO does not
`
`dispute the prior art teaches a gusset.
`
`2. “open cell construction” (dependent claims 4, 14, 15, 18)
`
`Petitioner and PO agree that the specification expressly defines “open cell
`
`construction” as “a construction having overall porosity greater than the inherent
`
`porosity of the constituent material or inherently having high porosity.” Paper 1
`
` 2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00351 Petitioner’s Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`(“Petition”), 22-23; POR, 38-39; EX1001, 1:41-44. PO, however, contends the
`
`phrase should be separately construed in two different ways based on additional
`
`structures already recited in claims 14, 15, and 18. POR, 42-45. PO’s proposal
`
`attempts to read in multiple additional limitations by limiting the “open cell
`
`construction” in certain claims to only encompass certain specific embodiments.
`
`Specifically, PO attempts to neatly partition the inventor’s express definition into
`
`two allegedly “separate and distinct categories” of open cell construction: “(i) one
`
`which transforms the constituent/base to achieve a greater overall porosity; and (ii)
`
`one which chooses a constituent/base material that naturally has high porosity.”
`
`Id., 35-36, 39-40. Then, PO shoehorns each of three allegedly “separate and
`
`distinct embodiments” (i.e., the “Arranging Strands Embodiment,” “Creating
`
`Apertures Embodiment,” and “High-Porosity Materials Embodiment”) into only
`
`one of these two allegedly “separate and distinct” categories. Id., 39-40. In doing
`
`so, PO attempts to: i) remove the “having high porosity” portion of the inventor’s
`
`definition from certain claims, ii) read in an ambiguous “open cells” limitation
`
`(which PO does not define), inconsistent with the inventor’s express definition, and
`
`iii) read in a further ambiguous requirement of “arrangement” that PO later argues
`
`requires material be “modified” to have an open cell construction. Id., 40-46.
`
`First, and most fundamentally, PO’s entire premise regarding the patent’s
`
`embodiments is wrong. The specification does not neatly partition the possible
`
` 3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00351 Petitioner’s Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`“open cell constructions” into three “separate and distinct” embodiments belonging
`
`to two “separate and distinct” categories and then claim only those separate
`
`embodiments. After describing these alleged “separate and distinct” embodiments
`
`with reference to Figures 3-5, the specification states in no uncertain terms, “The
`
`gusset 20 may include one or more of the open cell configurations described above
`
`in connection with FIGS. 3-5 singularly or in any combination.” EX1001, 2:65-67
`
`(emphases added). PO, therefore, cannot neatly bucket these embodiments to
`
`suggest, for example, that embodiments having “interlaced or spaced-apart
`
`strands,” as described with reference to Fig. 3, are not also “highly porous,” as
`
`described with reference to Fig. 5. Even PO’s expert concedes these embodiments
`
`cannot be separated. EX2004, ¶110 (“This being said, however, the ’134, ’332, and
`
`’883 Patents teach the ability to combine the various techniques for creating an
`
`open cell gusset.”); EX2001, ¶65. Therefore, when the claims recite, for example,
`
`the gusset being “formed of an open cell construction, said open cell construction
`
`being formed” by “strands defining a mesh configuration” (as in claim 18), the
`
`claims cannot be said to be limited to only the first part of the inventor’s definition,
`
`excluding the second part encompassing “highly porous” material. To allow PO to
`
`erase part of the definition improperly limits the claims to specific preferred
`
`embodiments.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00351 Petitioner’s Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`Second, PO’s constructions improperly rewrite the inventor’s express
`
`definition of “open cell construction” by requiring “open cells.” POR, 45-46. PO
`
`does not expressly define “open cells” and, in attempting to distinguish
`
`Rasmussen, PO and its expert use this ambiguous term to argue that strands must
`
`be arranged to “create ‘open cells’” or “create large openings.” EX2004, ¶¶154-
`
`157; POR, 63-66. PO’s construction improperly reads in limitations. The
`
`inventor’s express definition of “open cell construction” defines this term with
`
`reference to “porosity,” not any “open cells” that must be “created.” EX1001,
`
`1:41-44. And “the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips, 415 F.3d 1303, 1316
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Third, for claim 18, PO’s constructions improperly inject a limitation
`
`requiring strands be “arranged” in a mesh configuration. POR, 43-44. In applying
`
`these constructions, PO contends these claims require strands be “modified or
`
`arranged,” attempting to limit these claims to only the so-called “Transforming
`
`Constituent Materials” portion of the inventor’s definition. Id., 52-54. But, as
`
`discussed, PO’s partitioning of embodiments flatly contradicts the specification
`
`and, therefore, improperly seeks to limit the claims to specific embodiments.
`
`The Board, therefore, need do no more than adopt the inventor’s express
`
`definition of “open cell construction.”
`
` 5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00351 Petitioner’s Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`3. “substantially greater” (dependent claims 14, 15)
`
`The parties agree the specification defines this term as simply “greater than.”
`
`POR, 49-50.
`
`4. “configured to have air enter the cavity through pores in the first
`and second panels and have the air exit the cavity through pores in
`the gusset” (independent claim 1)
`
`Petitioner did not propose a construction for this phrase in its Petition. PO’s
`
`proposed construction requiring airflow in a particular direction, to the extent it
`
`required airflow only in one direction (“air enter only through the panels and exit
`
`only through the gusset”), was rejected by the Board. Decision, 8. Further, the
`
`Board determined express construction was unnecessary and also noted there was a
`
`reasonable likelihood Rasmussen taught this limitation based on Rasmussen’s
`
`gusset being more porous than its porous top and bottom panels. Id., 8, 13.
`
`PO’s construction introduces unnecessary confusion and should be rejected.
`
`First, PO rewrites the claim language to recite air entering through the first “or”
`
`second panels when the claim refers to air entering through both the first and
`
`second panels. And air that enters both of two separate panels cannot, of course, be
`
`physically “the same air” (i.e., in two places at once), demonstrating the illogic in
`
`PO’s construction. Second, as the Board correctly noted and PO fails to refute, the
`
`’883 specification never describes “the same air” entering the panels and then
`
`exiting the gusset. PO’s reliance on col. 2:10-13 of the patent is misplaced because
`
` 6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00351 Petitioner’s Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`it does not state that the same air enters through the panels and then exits through
`
`the gusset—it only addresses venting through the gusset. EX1001, 2:10-13.
`
`Importantly, this limitation merely requires the pillow be “configured” in a
`
`particular way—it does not require performing a method step in which air actually
`
`flows. And, as PO’s expert admits, the pillow “configuration” described in the
`
`specification to provide PO’s alleged airflow in through the panels and out through
`
`the gusset is by having a gusset more porous than the porous top and bottom
`
`panels. EX1061, 35:11-15, 61:17-62:12. As explained below, this is precisely how
`
`Rasmussen’s pillow is configured (with respect to both its “core” and its “cover”)
`
`and a POSITA, therefore, would understand PO’s proposed directional airflow
`
`interpretation would be satisfied in any event. Infra Sec. II.C.1. Therefore,
`
`Petitioner agrees with the Board that express construction is unnecessary.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Skill of a POSITA
`
`PO’s Response does not propose a POSITA definition. PO’s Preliminary
`
`Response, however, had proffered a definition that required no actual experience in
`
`pillow design and instead proposed experience with thermodynamics and moisture
`
`dispersion. Paper 7 (“POPR”), 16-17. Petitioner contends a POSITA would have
`
`had experience in pillow design. Petition, 15. PO’s expert conceded that the
`
`challenged patent is directed to “pillow design” (EX1061, 26:16-19) and that it
`
`was “desirable” for a POSITA to have pillow design experience. Id., 31:9-13. Yet,
`
` 7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00351 Petitioner’s Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`PO’s expert conceded he has no pillow design experience—the relevant art of the
`
`challenged patent. Id., 21:9-13. PO’s expert’s opinions, therefore, are not given
`
`from the perspective of a POSITA and should be weighed accordingly—
`
`particularly on issues of pillow design and whether PO’s expert’s “counter-
`
`examples” are reasonable understandings of Rasmussen’s pillow.
`
`By contrast, Petitioner’s expert provides opinions from the perspective of an
`
`artisan in the field of pillow design, including memory foam pillows using 3D
`
`textiles for ventilation and cooling. EX1059, ¶¶10, 68-71; EX1056. Further,
`
`Petitioner’s expert also meets PO’s definition, while still being a skilled artisan in
`
`pillow design. EX1062, ¶4.
`
`C. All Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable
`
`1. Rasmussen Anticipates Claim 1, as well as Claims 4, 7-10, and 13
`
`PO does not dispute that Rasmussen teaches the first four limitations of
`
`claim 1. PO only disputes claim 1’s requirement that “said pillow is configured to
`
`have air enter the cavity through pores in the first and second panels and have the
`
`air exit the cavity through pores in the gusset.” The Board rejected PO’s argument
`
`that this requires the pillow to be configured to have air only flow into the pillow
`
`through the panels and exit only through the gusset. Decision, 8. And the Board
`
`found there was a reasonable likelihood this limitation was satisfied based on
`
`Rasmussen’s teaching that its gusset was more porous than its less porous top and
`
` 8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00351 Petitioner’s Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`bottom panels. Id., 13. PO now acknowledges that the plain language of the claim
`
`does not limit whether air may also enter and exit through both the panels and the
`
`gusset (POR, 47), and PO does not dispute that Rasmussen (“core” and “cover”
`
`mapping) teaches a porous top and bottom panel and a highly porous gusset that is
`
`more permeable than the top and bottom panels.
`
`PO, however, contends that Rasmussen does not explicitly state that the
`
`same air that enters through the first and second panels then exits through the
`
`gusset. POR, 69. As discussed above, Petitioner’s proposed construction
`
`introduces confusion as to what is meant by “the same air” that enters both the first
`
`and second panels, and there is no support in the ’883 specification for “the same
`
`air” entering both the panels and then exiting the gusset. Supra Sec. II.A.4.
`
`Regardless, express construction is unnecessary because a POSITA would
`
`understand Rasmussen’s pillow is “configured” to provide the allegedly required
`
`directional airflow in the same way as in the ’883 patent. The patent describes
`
`providing lateral ventilation through a highly porous gusset. EX1001, 1:35-40, 2:5-
`
`14, 2:55-60. As PO’s expert testified, the way in which the pillows in the patent are
`
`configured to provide the allegedly required directional airflow is through a gusset
`
`that is more porous than the top and bottom panels:
`
`Q. So are you saying the direction of the airflow is in through the top
`of the pillow and out through the side because the gusset is more
`porous than the top and bottom panels?
` 9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00351 Petitioner’s Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`
`A. Yes.
`EX1061, 35:11-15, 61:17-62:12. PO’s expert also agreed this is because air tends
`
`to travel the path of least resistance when pressure is applied to the top of the
`
`pillow (e.g., a person lays their head on the pillow). Id., 33:24-35:15.
`
`
`
`Rasmussen’s pillow is configured for airflow in the same manner. EX1062,
`
`¶¶22-26. PO does not dispute Rasmussen’s “core” and “cover” each teach a gusset
`
`that is more porous than top and bottom panels, which are each porous. Petition,
`
`32-35; EX1059 at ¶¶108-112. Thus, a POSITA would understand for both its
`
`“core” and “cover” that Rasmussen teaches a pillow configured to have air enter
`
`through the porous top and bottom panels and then exit through its more porous
`
`gusset—because it is configured such that at least some air that has entered through
`
`the panels will travel the path of least resistance out the more porous gusset (e.g.,
`
`when a person’s head applies pressure to the top of the pillow). EX1062, ¶¶22-25;
`
`EX1059, ¶¶108-112. Rasmussen, therefore, teaches a pillow configuration that
`
`satisfies the alleged required directional airflow in the same way as in the ’883
`
`patent even under PO’s proposed construction, rendering express construction
`
`unnecessary. Rasmussen, thus, anticipates claim 1.
`
`
`
`Finally, PO makes no separate arguments regarding dependent claims 4, 7-
`
`10, and 13, which are, therefore, also anticipated, for the reasons identified in the
`
`Petition.
`
` 10
`
`
`
`2. Rasmussen Anticipates Claims 2 and 3
`
`IPR2017-00351 Petitioner’s Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`
`PO contends with strained, bare attorney argument that the gusset pictured
`
`and described in Rasmussen might not extend around the entire perimeter of the
`
`first and second panels simply because the figures in Rasmussen do not show every
`
`single side of the pillow. POR, 73.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 provides “a perspective view” and Figure 2 provides a “cross-sectional
`
`view” of Rasmussen’s pillow. EX1006, [0010]-[0011]. Rasmussen describes that
`
`the core’s “sidewalls 160 connect[] the top layer 140 and bottom layer 150,” that
`
`“the top layer 140 and sidewalls 160 meet and are joined,” that “the bottom layer
`
`150 and the sidewalls 160 meet and are joined,” and that the cover’s top, bottom,
`
`and side portions lie adjacent to and cover the corresponding top, bottom, and side
`
`components of the core. Id., [0015], [0048]. Petitioner’s expert opined that a
`
`POSITA would have understood from Rasmussen’s description and various views
`
`in its figures that the pillow’s gusset (including sidewalls 160 for the “core” and
`
`side portion 220 for the “cover”) extends all the way around and perimetrically
`
` 11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00351 Petitioner’s Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`bounds the top and bottom panels of the pillow. EX1059, ¶¶114-118. Not
`
`surprisingly, PO’s expert offers no contrary opinion that a POSITA could not tell
`
`from Rasmussen’s description and figures that its gusset extends all the way
`
`around. There is, of course, no need to show all sides in a perspective view when
`
`there is nothing different to show. As Petitioner’s expert testified, she would
`
`“never interpret [Rasmussen] in any other way than that the vertical portion
`
`[gusset] goes all the way around.” EX2016, 98:1-4.
`
`3. Rasmussen Anticipates Claims 14 and 15
`
`With regard to claims 14 and 15 (for both the “core” and “cover” mappings),
`
`PO does not dispute Rasmussen teaches that the gusset is formed of an open cell
`
`construction and a base material and that the gusset has greater porosity than
`
`Rasmussen’s porous first and second panels. POR, 66-68. Instead, PO makes a
`
`strained argument that Rasmussen “at best” teaches that the gusset “as a whole”
`
`has greater porosity than the panels and not necessarily that the gusset’s “base
`
`material” has greater porosity than the panels’ “material.” Id. Specifically, PO and
`
`its expert argue that, hypothetically, the gusset and panels could be made of the
`
`same “materials” (i.e., the same polyester strands) and the gusset could be more
`
`porous solely because of how those “materials”/strands are arranged. Id.; EX2004,
`
`¶177.
`
` 12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00351 Petitioner’s Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`PO and its expert’s argument misleadingly relies on an improperly narrow
`
`usage and construction of the terms “material” and “base material” that limits these
`
`terms to being only the fibers of which a textile is comprised, rather than also
`
`encompassing a textile itself. PO’s expert uses this narrow meaning for “base
`
`material” in PO’s hypothetical to limit “base material” to being only the fibers
`
`making up a textile. See EX2004, ¶177 (“the alleged gusset and panels may be
`
`made of the same base material (e.g., polyesters) . . . . [And] the alleged gusset
`
`could be made more porous by arrangement of the ‘base material’ of the
`
`gusset”). The specification, however, provides “a textile” as an example of a “base
`
`material” and, thus, does not limit “material” or “base material” to being only the
`
`fibers making up a textile. EX1001, 2:36-38. Thus, a more porous textile made
`
`from polyester fibers is still a more porous “material”/“base material” than a less
`
`porous textile made from the exact same polyester fibers. The claim language does
`
`not require the gusset and panels to use different fiber types for the gusset to be
`
`comprised of a more porous “material”/“base material.” Therefore, Rasmussen’s
`
`gusset being comprised of a more porous textile than the first and second panels
`
`satisfies claims 14 and 15, which are, therefore, anticipated. Petition, 51-52;
`
`EX1059, ¶¶144-146.
`
` 13
`
`
`
`4. Rasmussen Anticipates Claim 18
`
`IPR2017-00351 Petitioner’s Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`
`PO devotes substantial pages of its Response to a number of arguments
`
`against Rasmussen’s anticipation of claim 18. These arguments are incorrect for
`
`numerous reasons: they misapply the standard for anticipation, they rely on PO’s
`
`improper attempts to read numerous limitations into the claims through PO’s
`
`constructions of “open cell construction,” and they rely on numerous misleading
`
`counter-example textile materials proffered by PO’s expert that are contrary to
`
`Rasmussen’s teachings and do not demonstrate a lack of anticipation. Petitioner
`
`addresses each of these arguments in turn.
`
`In arguing that Rasmussen does not expressly disclose the “specific open
`
`cell configuration” of claim 18, PO relies on its improperly narrow constructions of
`
`“open cell construction,” which improperly read out the “highly porous” portion of
`
`the inventor’s definition (because Rasmussen expressly satisfies it) and read in a
`
`requirement that “constituent material is modified and arranged in strands.” POR,
`
`54. As discussed, PO’s constructions improperly read in limitations and should be
`
`rejected. Supra Sec. II.A.2. Rasmussen’s “highly porous” gusset (the “core” or
`
`“cover” mapping), therefore, satisfies the patent’s express definition of “open cell
`
`construction,” which PO does not dispute.
`
`Next, PO improperly imposes a requirement that Rasmussen must use the
`
`exact same words as the claims (i.e., “strands defining a mesh configuration”
`
` 14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00351 Petitioner’s Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`(claim 18), to anticipate them. POR, 53-54. This is apparent from PO’s citation to
`
`Petitioner’s expert’s deposition where PO’s counsel repeatedly asked if these
`
`words appeared verbatim in Rasmussen. POR, 53. But for a reference to
`
`anticipate, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis [word-for-word]
`
`test.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Instead, as the Board has
`
`explained many times in the past:
`
`To establish anticipation, “all of the elements and limitations of the
`claim must be shown in a single prior reference, arranged as in the
`claim.” Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376,
`1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). When evaluating a single prior art reference in
`the context of anticipation, the reference must be “considered together
`with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour,
`571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)). “‘[T]he dispositive question
`regarding anticipation[, therefore, i]s whether one skilled in the art
`would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s]
`teaching’ that every claim element was disclosed in that single
`reference.” Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d
`1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (alterations in original) (quoting In re
`Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-00923, Paper 39 (Aug. 4, 2017), at 10-11; IPR2016-01041,
`
`Paper 29 (Nov 9, 2017), at 13. The test is not whether Rasmussen uses the word
`
` 15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00351 Petitioner’s Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`“strands defining a mesh configuration,” but whether a POSITA reading
`
`Rasmussen would reasonably understand this element is taught.
`
`
`
`For the “core” mapping, Rasmussen expressly describes using highly porous
`
`3D textile material or other breathable fabric in its sidewalls 160 (gusset), which
`
`are “highly porous, and therefore provide significant ventilation, allowing air to
`
`enter and exit readily through the gusset.” EX1006, [0029]. For the “cover”
`
`mapping, Rasmussen also similarly expressly describes using a highly porous
`
`material, such as a 3D textile material or a velour or stretch velour material for the
`
`side portions 220 (gusset) to “permit significant ventilation into and out of the
`
`pillow” and “improve the micro-climate of the pillow with respect to humidity and
`
`temperature.” Id., [0049]. PO and its expert do not dispute that textiles have strands
`
`(e.g., fibers or yarns). EX1061, 55:15-21; POR, 4 (“The basic building block of
`
`textiles is the fiber(s). . . .These fibers can then be ‘spun’ into yarn to create
`
`various textiles.”). And, as explained by Petitioner’s expert, a POSITA would have
`
`understood that the strands in Rasmussen’s gusset define a mesh configuration
`
`based on the high porosity and significant airflow provided. EX1059, ¶¶154-155;
`
`see also EX1062, ¶¶5-15.
`
`a) “Strands defining a mesh configuration”
`
`Critically, with regard to “strands defining a mesh configuration,” PO’s
`
`expert offers no opinion that Rasmussen does not teach “strands defining a mesh
`
` 16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00351 Petitioner’s Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`configuration” for claim 18 of the ’883 Patent. See EX2004, ¶¶154-162. Thus, as
`
`an initial matter, PO’s expert fails to contradict Petitioner’s expert’s opinion that a
`
`POSITA would understand Rasmussen as teaching strands defining a mesh
`
`configuration to provide the “significant ventilation” and “readily” allow airflow
`
`through the gusset’s highly porous 3D textile material.
`
`
`
`In the context of responding to a straw-man inherency argument, PO argues
`
`that “highly porous” 3D textiles do not necessarily have strands that are “meshed.”
`
`POR, 55. PO cites a series of purported counter-examples provided by its expert,
`
`which are highly misleading. Id. (citing EX2004, ¶¶158-162, 67-73). Each
`
`example relies on a technical definition of porosity being “a measure of the void
`
`(i.e., ‘empty’) spaces in a material, and is a faction of the volume of voids over the
`
`total volume.” EX2004, ¶157, ¶¶51-52. This definition refers to void volume
`
`(including trapped void volume) and does not refer only to porosity that actually
`
`provides for airflow through a material (which PO’s expert terms “permeability”).
`
`Id., ¶¶51-52. Thus, this definition allows PO’s expert to refer to materials having
`
`large amounts of trapped air/voids, such as alpaca/llama hairs, other hollow fibers,
`
`or crimped wool as being “highly porous” even though these materials are “tightly-
`
`woven” and alleged by PO to not have meshed strands. EX1062, ¶¶7-11. But these
`
`trapped air materials are described as providing good “insulation,” which tends to
`
`prevent airflow and prevent the transfer of heat. Id., ¶¶8-9 (citing EX2010,
`
` 17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00351 Petitioner’s Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`EX2011, EX2013). These counter-examples, therefore, are entirely inconsistent
`
`with the patents and Rasmussen. Id., ¶¶9-11.
`
`The ’883 patent’s usage of porosity refers to porosity that provides airflow
`
`for cooling, as PO’s expert repeatedly admitted. EX1061, 26:3-7, 32:3-11, 36:5-
`
`37:6. Similarly, Rasmussen refers to porosity that provides airflow. EX1062, ¶10.
`
`Specifically, Rasmussen teaches using 3D textile material to provide a gusset that
`
`is “highly porous, and therefore provide[s] a significant degree of ventilation for
`
`the pillow, allowing air to enter and exit the pillow 100 readily through the sides”
`
`(for the core) and that “permit[s] significant ventilation into and out of the pillow”
`
`and “improve[s] the micro-climate of the pillow 100 with respect to humidity and
`
`temperature” (for the cover). EX1006, [0029], [0049]-[0050]. A POSITA,
`
`therefore, would not understand any of PO’s purported “highly porous” counter-
`
`examples to be materials taught for the gusset of Rasmussen, because they are
`
`contrary to Rasmussen’s highly porous 3D textile gusset that provides significant
`
`airflow and cooling. EX1062, ¶¶7-11. And, tellingly, PO’s expert never opines that
`
`a POSITA would actually understand Rasmussen to be teaching any of these
`
`materials, which are “highly porous” by virtue of trapped air/voids, rather than by
`
`being spaced-apart/meshed to provide significant airflow and cooling. See
`
`EX2004, ¶¶154-162. Therefore, PO has failed to refute Petitioner’s expert’s
`
`opinion that a POSITA would understand Rasmussen’s highly porous 3D textile
`
` 18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00351 Petitioner’s Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`that provides significant ventilation to have spacings that provide this significant
`
`airflow and, therefore, teaches “strands defining a mesh configuration.” EX1059,
`
`¶¶154-155; EX1062, ¶¶7-15.
`
`b) Genus-Species
`
`
`
`Next, PO manufactures another straw-man in the form of a genus-species
`
`argument to suggest that Rasmussen must describe and enable a POSITA to
`
`envisage every type of 3D textile. POR, 56-57. But Petitioner is not contending
`
`that Rasmussen’s highly porous 3D textile material that provides “significant
`
`ventilation” and “readily allows air to enter and exit” describes some genus within
`
`which exists some purported species of “strands defining a mesh configuration.”
`
`Instead, Petitioner contends a POSITA would understand Rasmussen teaches
`
`strands defining a mesh configuration. And, in any event, as discussed above, PO’s
`
`expert fails to identify any other alleged non-anticipatory counter-examples outside
`
`of his misleading use of tightly-woven insulating materials having “trapped air”
`
`porosity that a POSITA would not reasonably understand Rasmussen to be
`
`teaching.
`
`c) Enablement
`
`
`
`PO argues Rasmussen is non-enabling prior art by implying it must enable
`
`every conceivable 3D textile. POR, 58-61. PO misapplies the law. To anticipate, a
`
`prior art reference need only enable “the claimed invention.” In re Antor Media
`
` 19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00351 Petitioner’s Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Enablement of prior art requires that
`
`the reference teach a skilled artisan to make or carry out what it discloses in
`
`relation to the claimed invention.”) (emphasis added). Thus, Rasmussen must
`
`merely enable a skilled artisan to make a highly porous gusset with “strands
`
`defining a mesh configuration.” Not surprisingly, PO proffers no opinion from its
`
`expert that a POSITA would be unable to do so. Finally, PO is incorrect to suggest
`
`that Rasmussen, as a non-issued-patent publication is not entitled to a presumption
`
`of enablement. In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d at 1288-89 (both patents and
`
`non-patent printed publications entitled to presumption). PO, therefore, has failed
`
`to overcome this presumption.
`
`d) “Open Cells”
`
`
`
`Finally, PO argues that Rasmussen fails to disclose “open cells” defined by
`
`strands “arranged in a particular configuration.” POR, 63-64. First, this argument
`
`is based on PO’s improper constructions that read in an ambiguous requirement of
`
`“open cells” that must be created from arranging or modifying strands—but the
`
`inventor’s express definition does not use “open cells” and instead refers to
`
`porosity, consistent with Rasmussen. Supra Sec. II.A.2. Next, PO and its expert,
`
`who refers to “large openings” (EX2004, ¶157), improperly imply some minimum
`
`size/spacings where none is required. Lastly, PO again relies on its expert’s
`
` 20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00351 Petitioner’s Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`misleading “highly porous” counter-examples (POR, 66-67), which contradicts
`
`both Rasmussen and the ’883 Patent and should be rejected as discussed above.
`
`
`
`Rasmussen, therefore, anticipates claim 18.
`
`5. Rasmussen Anticipates Claim 17
`
`Claim 17 requires at least one of the first or second panels be “comprised of
`
`a material selected from a group consisting of: a 100% polyester fabric, rayon,
`
`nylon, or a spandex-blend fabric.” PO does not dispute that a POSITA would
`
`understand that Rasmussen teaches first and second panels comprised of 100%
`
`polyester or a gusset comprised of polyester. Petition, 46-47, 52; EX1006, [0052];
`
`EX1059, ¶151. Instead, PO contends through bare attorney argument, unsupported
`
`by expert o