UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`AMERICAN NATIONAL MANUFACTURING INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SLEEP NUMBER CORPORATION
`f/k/a SELECT COMFORT CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00500
`Patent No. 9,737,154 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`DESCRIPTION OF THE ‘154 PATENT AND PRIOR ART. ..................... 2
`A.
`The ‘154 Patent. ................................................................................. 2
`B.
`Summary of the Asserted Art. ............................................................ 5
`i.
`Gifft: USPN 5,904,172 (Ex. 1004). .......................................... 5
`ii. Mittal: USPN 5,629,873 (Ex. 1005). ........................................ 7
`iii.
`Pillsbury: USPN 5,277,187 (Ex. 1006). ................................. 11
`iv.
`Ebel: U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0000559 (Ex. 1007). ...................... 11
`ARGUMENT....................................................................................................... 12
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART. ....................................... 12
`I.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION. ...................................................................... 13
`II.
`“pressure sensing means” (Claims 20, 21, 22).................................. 14
`A.
`B.
`“desired pressure setpoint” (Claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20). . 15
`C.
`“adjustment factor error” (Claims 1, 10, 12, 18, and 20). ................. 16
`D.
`“pressure target” (Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 12, 14-18, 20). ................. 17
`E.
`“determining” (Claims 1, 9, 12, 17, 18, 20, 22). ............................... 18
`IMPERMISSIBLE HINDSIGHT. .............................................................. 18
`A.
`Petitioner Impermissibly Uses the Claims as a Roadmap. ................ 20
`B.
`Hindsight Bias. ................................................................................ 22
`IV. PETITIONER’S GROUNDS RELY ON NON-ANALOGOUS ART........ 26
`
`Petitioner’s Failure to Articulate How the Asserted References
`Would Be Combined to Render the Claims Obvious Leaves Only
`
`III.
`
`PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS ARE TAINTED BY
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`
`V.
`
`There Is No Motivation to Combine Gifft and Mittal
`Because a POSITA Would Understand Mittal’s Pressure
`Adjustment Cycles Would Not Increase Accuracy or
`
`The Asserted References Are From Different Fields of Endeavor. ... 27
`A.
`The Asserted Art Is Not Reasonably Pertinent to the Problem. ........ 28
`B.
`REFERENCES. ......................................................................................... 30
`A.
`Art Reference. .................................................................................. 31
`B.
`Mittal. .............................................................................................. 34
`i.
`Speed. .................................................................................... 35
`a.
`Because Mittal Is Not Concerned with Precision. ........ 36
`b.
`at the Expense of Accuracy. ......................................... 39
`c.
`the Desired Pressure Faster Than Gifft’s Cycles. ......... 41
`ii.
`with One Another. ................................................................. 42
`iii.
`for Its Intended Purpose. ........................................................ 44
`iv. Mittal Would Not Motivate a POSITA to Modify a
`Pressure Adjustment Factor in the System of Gifft. ............... 46
`v.
`Gifft or Mittal with the Disclaimed Prior Art of Gifft. ........... 46
`
`THERE IS NO MOTIVATION TO COMBINE THE ASSERTED
`
`Petitioner Must Articulate a Motivation to Combine Each Prior
`
`A POSITA Would Not Be Motivated to Combine Gifft with
`
`A POSITA Would Not Combine Gifft with Mittal
`
`Even if Motivated to Limit the Number of Pressure
`Adjustment Cycles, a POSITA Would Not Do So
`
`A POSITA Would Understand that Mittal’s
`Pressure Adjustment Cycles Would Not Achieve
`
`There Is No Motivation to Combine Gifft and Mittal
`Because the Teachings of the References Are at Odds
`
`There Is No Motivation to Combine Gifft and Mittal
`Because Such a Combination Would Render Gifft Unfit
`
`Petitioner Fails To Provide Any Motivation to Combine
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`
`C.
`D.
`
`Mittal with Pillsbury. ....................................................................... 47
`Pillsbury with Ebel........................................................................... 50
`i.
`Petitioner Impermissibly Alters Ebel’s Disclosure. ................ 50
`a.
`Identified By Petitioner. ............................................... 51
`b.
`Petitioner. .................................................................... 53
`ii.
`Gifft-Mittal-Pillsbury. ............................................................ 55
`VI. PETITIONER FAILS TO ADEQUATELY IDENTIFY THE
`LIMITATIONS OF THE CLAIMS IN THE ASSERTED ART. ............... 56
`A.
`20k). 56
`B.
`pressure target” (12f). ...................................................................... 57
`C.
`“control device” (20e, 20f). .............................................................. 58
`D.
`pressure adjustment factor” (5, 6, 15). .............................................. 59
`VII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS. ....................................................... 59
`A.
`Industry Praise. ................................................................................ 61
`Copying. .......................................................................................... 61
`B.
`Commercial Success. ....................................................................... 66
`C.
`
`“multiplicative pressure adjustment factor” and “dividing the
`desired pressure setpoint for the air chamber by a manifold deflate
`
`Petitioner Fails to Identify a Motivation to Combine Gifft or
`
`Petitioner Fails to Identify a Motivation to Combine Gifft-Mittal-
`
`Nothing in Ebel, or Any Other References,
`Suggests the Fluid-Electric Equivalent Circuit
`
`Nothing in Ebel, or Any Other References,
`Suggests the Multiplicative Factor Identified by
`
`Petitioner Fails to Explain Any Problem Solved or
`Benefit Conferred By the Combination of Ebel with
`
`“substantially equal” to the pressure target (1c, 10c, 12l, 18d, 20g,
`
`“within an acceptable pressure target error range of the manifold
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`
`D. Unexpected Results. ......................................................................... 68
`VIII. THE PETITION WAS PROCEDURALLY DEFICIENT. ......................... 69
`A.
`a Filing Date. ................................................................................... 69
`B.
`Confusing. ....................................................................................... 69
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 70
`
`The Petition Was Untimely and Should Not Have Been Accorded
`
`The Petition Was Impermissibly Non-Specific, Conclusory, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l, Inc.,
`174 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................................ 66
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................ 13
`
`Apple Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00453, Paper 9 (PTAB July 13, 2015) ........................................ 26, 33
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.,
`839 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 61
`
`Avant Tech., Inc. v. Anza Tech., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00828, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2018) .............................................. 34
`
`Belden Inc. v. BerkTek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ 32
`
`In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................. 26, 27
`
`Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Phillip Morris Inc.,
`229 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ........................................................................ 67
`
`In re Clay,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .......................................................................... 28
`
`Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc.,
`807 F.2d 955 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .......................................................................... 68
`
`DIRECTV, LLC v. Qurio Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-02007, Paper 6 (PTAB Apr. 4, 2016) ................................................ 33
`
`Ecolochem, Inc. v. S. Cal. Edison Co.,
`227 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................ 19, 21, 66
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.,
`110 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................................ 68
`
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .......................................................................... 45
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966)............................................................................................. 31
`
`In re Gurley,
`27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 42
`
`Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.,
`645 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................ 32
`
`Infinera Corp. v. Core Optical Techs., LLC,
`IPR2018-01259, Paper 9 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2019) ............................................... 14
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................ 31
`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 31
`
`J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co.,
`106 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................................ 66
`
`In re Kotzab,
`217 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ........................................................................ 19
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ....................................................................... 22, 31, 42, 48
`
`Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co.,
`449 F.3d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................ 65
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................. 14, 54
`
`Ex Parte Mcdonald,
`Appeal 2009-002329, 2009 WL 2007186 (PTAB July 9, 2009) ....................... 32
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`Medisim Ltd. v. BestMed LLC,
`861 F.Supp.2d 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ................................................................ 56
`
`Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Warner Chilcott Co., LLC,
`711 F. App’x 633 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................... 20
`
`Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co.,
`848 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................. passim
`
`Mylan Institutional LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.,
`857 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 62
`
`In re Oetiker,
`977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ........................................................................ 29
`
`Omron Oilfield & Marine, Inc. v. MD/TOTCO,
`IPR2013-00265, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2015) ...................................... 59, 66
`
`Ex Parte Patrick C. Tessier & Jeffrey S. Hartzler,
`Appeal 2012-006616, 2014 WL 4925550 (PTAB Sept. 30, 2014) ............. 32, 49
`
`Personal Web Tech., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................. 19, 22, 23
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................ 13
`
`Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.,
`724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................ 19
`
`Plas-Pak Indus., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG,
`600 F. App’x 755 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................. 42, 44
`
`Polygroup Ltd. v. Willis Electric Co. Ltd.,
`IPR2016-01610, Paper 187 (PTAB Feb. 26, 2018) .......................................... 26
`
`In re Ratti,
`270 F.2d 810 (C.C.P.A. 1959).......................................................................... 42
`
`Schott Gemtron Corp. v. SSW Holding Co., Inc.,
`IPR2014-00367, Paper 62 (PTAB May 26, 2015) ............................................ 28
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`Securus Techs., Inc. v. Glob. Tel*Link Corp.,
`701 F. App’x 971 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................... 56
`
`Sony Corp. v. Collabo Innovations, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00938, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 13, 2016) .............................................. 32
`
`Square, Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper,
`IPR2014-00158, Paper 10 (PTAB May 15, 2014) ............................................ 33
`
`In re Stepan Co.,
`868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................ 47
`
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc.,
`699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................ 60
`
`TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`514 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................ 14
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 14
`
`In re Vaidyanathan,
`381 F. App’x 985 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................... 19
`
`In re Van Os,
`844 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................ 31
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................................ 61
`
`Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang,
`202 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ........................................................................ 32
`
`Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC,
`683 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................ 67
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................. 61, 62
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §112 ..................................................................................................... 14
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .............................................................................................. 58, 69
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .......................................................................................... 14, 69
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105 ................................................................................................ 69
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106 ................................................................................................ 69
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`2001
`2002
`2003
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`2008
`2009
`2010
`2011
`2012
`2013
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Description
`
`Declaration of Dr. William Messner
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,769,747
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,737,154
`PAIR Correspondence Address of Record for U.S. Patent No.
`8,769,747
`PAIR Correspondence Address of Record for U.S. Patent No.
`9,737,154
`PAIR Correspondence Address of Record for U.S. Patent No.
`5,904,172
`Declaration of Lukas D. Toft
`PAIR Assignment History of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,747
`PAIR Assignment History of U.S. Patent No. 9,737,154
`PAIR Assignment History of U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172
`Sleep Number v. Sizewise (TX) Complaint
`Sleep Number v. ANM (TX) Complaint
`Ex. E to Defendant's Invalidity Contentions from District Court
`Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary Excerpt
`(Copyright 1998)
`Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary Excerpt
`(Copyright 1994)
`Patent Owner's Discovery Requests
`Declaration of Elizabeth Patton in Support of Motion for
`Additional Discovery
`U.S. District Court - Central District of California Case No. 5:18-
`cv-0357 Stipulated Protective Order dated July 25, 2018, Order
`Granting Stipulated Protective Order dated August 8, 2018 and
`Order Granting Joint Stipulation to Modify Protective Order dated
`November 20, 2018
`U.S. District Court - Central District of California Case No. 5:18-
`cv-0356 Stipulated Protective Order dated July 25, 2018, Order
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`2020
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`2028
`
`2029
`2030
`
`2031
`2032
`2033
`2034
`2035
`2036
`
`2037
`2038
`2039
`2040
`
`Granting Stipulated Protective Order dated August 8, 2018, and
`Order Granting Joint Stipulation to Modify Protective Order dated
`November 20, 2018
`September 2019 email chain
`Declaration of Elizabeth Patton in Support of Motion for Pro Hac
`Vice
`Declaration of Andrew Hansen in Support of Motion for Pro Hac
`Vice
`Declaration of Archana Nath in Support of Motion for Pro Hac
`Vice
`Proposed Stipulated Protective Order
`Redline Comparing Proposed Stipulated Protective Order with the
`Default Protective Order
`Declaration of Dr. William Messner – Under Seal, redacted version
`filed publicly
`Declaration of John Abraham
`U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172 versus Sleep Number ADAT air
`controller chart
`Declaration of George Edwards
`Declaration of Carl Degen – Under Seal, redacted version filed
`publicly
`Declaration of Paul Mahoney
`Declaration of Robert Nunn
`Declaration of Elizabeth A. Patton
`Craig Miller Trial Testimony from Dires Case
`Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibit 730 from Dires Case
`Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibits 716 and 718 and Defendants’ Trial
`Exhibits 212, 213 and 215 from Dires Case
`Defendant’s Trial Exhibits 172 and 174 from Dires Case
`Personal Comfort Webpage “The Original Number Bed”
`Instant Comfort User Guide
`Declaration of Lukas D. Toft
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`2041
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`2044
`
`2045
`
`2046
`
`2047
`
`2048
`
`2049
`
`2050
`
`2051
`
`2052
`2053
`2054
`2055
`
`2056
`
`Description
`
`Transcript of September 24, 2019 Deposition of Dr. Joshua
`Phinney
`Transcript of September 25, 2019 Deposition of Dr. Joshua
`Phinney
`September 26, 2019 District Court Order Modifying Protective
`Order
`Plaintiff’s Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions (ANM District Court Case)
`Plaintiff’s Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions (Sizewise District Court Case)
`Sleep Number’s Infringement Contentions from District Court
`Case, U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172 versus American National
`Manufacturing Accused Products – Redacted
`Sleep Number’s Infringement Contentions from District Court
`Case, U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172 versus Sizewise Rentals, LLC
`Accused Products – Redacted
`Sleep Number’s Infringement Contentions from District Court
`Case, U.S. Patent No. 9,737,154 versus American National
`Manufacturing Accused Products – Redacted
`Sleep Number’s Infringement Contentions from District Court
`Case, U.S. Patent No. 8,769,747 versus American National
`Manufacturing Accused Products – Redacted
`ANMI00178030-ANMI00178035 (District Court Case) – Under
`Seal
`ANMI00178036-ANMI00178041 (District Court Case) – Under
`Seal
`ANMI00133414-ANMI00133422 (District Court Case)
`ANMI00268037 (District Court Case) – Under Seal
`ANMI00178191 (District Court Case) – Under Seal
`ANMI00260633 (District Court Case) – Under Seal, redacted
`version filed publicly
`ANMI00260628-ANMI00260629 (District Court Case) – Under
`Seal, redacted version filed publicly
`
`xii
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`2057
`2058
`2059
`
`2060
`
`2061
`
`2062
`
`2063
`2064
`
`2065
`2066
`2067
`2068
`2069
`
`2070
`2071
`
`2072
`
`2073
`
`2074
`
`
`
`
`Description
`
`IPR 8 “Raw Data” tab – Under Seal
`SN_0021013-33 (District Court Case)
`Sleep Number technical drawings titled ASSY, SOLENOID
`HOUSING, PFCS03, DUAL
`Sleep Number technical drawings titled HOUSING, VALVE BOX,
`SINGLE, COROLLA
`Sleep Number technical drawings titled COVER, VALVE BOX,
`COROLLA
`Sleep Number technical drawings titled ASSY, SOLENOID
`HOUSING, DUAL, SIQ
`“The Magic Number” – Trucking Info Article
`“Understanding truck tires and air pressure” – Fleet Equipment
`Article
`U.S. Patent No. 954,284
`U.S. Patent No. 4,995,124
`U.S. Patent No. 5,020,176
`PCT Publication No. WO96/13947
`McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms
`Excerpt (Copyright 2003)
`Instant Comfort Page “Why We’re Better”
`Declaration of Elizabeth A. Patton in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Motion for Additional Discovery
`Defendant’s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Second Ex
`Parte Application to Modify the Protective Order (ANM District
`Court Case)
`Email thread among ANM & Sleep Number counsel from
`September 27 to October 14, 2019 regarding Motion for Additional
`Discovery
`Sleep Number’s proposed additional discovery requests
`
`
`
`xiii
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Sleep Number Corporation (“PO”) has been an innovator in the
`
`field of adjustable air mattresses for decades. PO sells adjustable air beds and related
`
`products, most notably the Sleep Number® bed, which allows each user to easily
`
`adjust the firmness of his/her side of the bed to a desired pressure setting known as
`
`a Sleep Number® setting.
`
`On April 4, 2008, PO filed a patent application on an improvement in
`
`adjusting pressure in the growing field of adjustable air mattresses, which resulted
`
`in the issuance of U.S. Patent No. 9,737,154 (“the ‘154 Patent” or “Mahoney”). The
`
`invention taught by the ‘154 Patent is a system and method that advantageously
`
`allows for quick and accurate pressure adjustments in an air mattress that is
`
`customizable to the user and environment.
`
`The instant inter partes review (“IPR”) Petition was filed by Petitioner
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc. (“Petitioner”) on December 21, 2018,
`
`challenging the patentability of all 22 claims in the ’154 Patent as obvious. The
`
`Petition does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness and is rife with
`
`impermissible hindsight, use of non-analogous art, failure to construe necessary
`
`claims, and failure to identify Petitioner’s arguments or evidence in support thereof
`
`with the required particularity. Even assuming, arguendo, that Petitioner has
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`established prima facie obviousness, PO has provided sufficient evidence of
`
`secondary considerations to show non-obviousness. Accordingly, PO respectfully
`
`requests the Board find each claim of the ‘154 Patent patentable.
`
`I.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE ‘154 PATENT AND PRIOR ART.
`
`A. The ‘154 Patent.
`
`The ‘154 Patent, titled “System and Method for Improved Pressure
`
`Adjustment,” was filed May 21, 2014 and issued August 22, 2017. It is a
`
`continuation of App. No. 12/936,084, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,769,747
`
`(“the ‘747 Patent”) on April 4, 2008, and claims priority back to U.S. National Stage
`
`Application of PCT/US2008/059409, filed on April 4, 2008. (Ex. 1001.)
`
`The ‘154 Patent discloses and
`
`claims innovative methods and systems
`
`for adjusting pressure within an adjustable
`
`air mattress that compensates, for each
`
`user, for differences between the actual
`
`pressure in the adjustable mattress 14 and
`
`the pressure sensed in a manifold 43 to
`
`quickly and more accurately reach the
`
`user’s desired pressure. (Ex. 2026 ¶¶32-
`
`42; Ex. 1001 at 5:26-7:34, FIG. 2 (seen
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`right).) Particularly novel is the systems and methods use of a combination of
`
`additive and multiplicative pressure adjustment factors, or offsets, to compensate for
`
`differences in sensed and actual pressures that exist during inflation versus during
`
`deflation in order to reduce the number of iterative adjustments necessary to reach
`
`the desired pressure. (See Ex. 1001 at 5:50-6:26; Ex. 2026 ¶¶35-40.) The offsets are
`
`updated in adaptive algorithms to further compensate for changes to a user’s size
`
`and weight, as well as other changes or modifications, to achieve faster and more
`
`accurate pressure adjustments with each iterative adjustment. (See Ex. 1001 at 2:4-
`
`16, 7:24-33, 10:53-11:13; Ex. 2026 ¶36-42.)
`
`The innovative pressure adjustment method or system described in the ‘154
`
`Patent typically begins with selecting or receiving a “desired pressure setpoint,”
`
`which represents a desired pressure or firmness of the air mattress. (Ex. 1001 at
`
`13:14-15, 7:34-39.) The desired pressure setpoint is used in conjunction with a
`
`pressure adjustment factor to calculate a pressure target. (See id. at 8:36-49.) The
`
`pressure adjustment factor is a value used to accurately reflect the mathematical
`
`relationship between the pressure in the mattress air chambers 14A and 14B and the
`
`pressure sensed by the pressure transducer 46 located within manifold 43 for a
`
`particular user. (See id. at 8:54-58, 9:12-16, 10:53-11:13.) The pressure is then
`
`adjusted, either by inflation or deflation, until the pressure sensed within the
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`manifold 43 is substantially equal to the pressure target. (Id. at 9:17-57, FIG. 6
`
`(reproduced below).)
`
`(Ex. 1001 at FIG. 6.)
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`
`After inflation/deflation ceases, another pressure measurement is taken to
`
`determine if the actual pressure achieved is substantially equal to the expected or
`
`desired pressure. (Id. at 9:58-10:6, FIG. 6.) If not, the difference is a determination
`
`of an adjustment factor error. (Ex. 2026 ¶¶38-39.) The pressure adjustment factor is
`
`modified, based upon an error, in order to more accurately reflect the mathematical
`
`relationship between the chamber pressure and the sensed pressure for that particular
`
`user, i.e., a “‘customized’ pressure adjustment factor specifically tailored to that
`
`user.” (See Ex. 1001 at 10:11-11:13.) Because each subsequent adjustment uses a
`
`modified pressure adjustment factor, the adjustments are faster and more accurate at
`
`achieving the user’s desired pressure. (Ex. 2026 ¶39.)
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Asserted Art.
`
`i.
`
`Gifft: USPN 5,904,172 (Ex. 1004).
`
`Gifft (“Gifft” or “172 Patent”) is cited on the face of the ‘154 Patent, discussed
`
`in the background of the invention, and was considered by the Examiner during
`
`prosecution of the ‘747 Patent, the parent of the ‘154 Patent. (Ex. 1001 at 1:28-30,
`
`p. 2; Ex. 2002 at 204, 241; Ex. 2003 at 112.) Gifft describes monitoring and
`
`adjusting of pressure in an adjustable mattress in order to adjust the desired firmness
`
`for a user. (Ex. 1004 at 1:5-8; Ex. 2026 ¶¶43-51.)
`
`Gifft recognized that prior art adjustable mattress systems (1) inefficiently
`
`required periodical sealing and unsealing of the valves, (i.e., “hunting/pecking”), in
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`order to monitor pressure in the bladder, and (2) generated unwanted heat through
`
`repeated actuation of solenoids to open and close valves. (Id. at 2:4-33.) Contrary
`
`to Petitioner’s contentions, Gifft does not identify slow pressure adjustments as a
`
`problem. (Pet. at 18.) Rather, Gifft discloses that prior art systems leaked, which
`
`resulted in a constantly deflating bladder. (Ex. 1004 at 2:21-26; Ex. 2026 ¶¶45-46.)
`
`Because of these prior art problems, Gifft discloses an improved valve
`
`enclosure assembly, located within the pump/air controller 112, which has a
`
`substantially fluidly sealed enclosure configured to continuously monitor the
`
`pressure within the air bladders, and which is used to inflate or deflate the air
`
`bladders 122 and 124. (Ex. 1004 at 3:65-4:16; Ex. 2026 ¶47.)
`
`(Ex. 1004 at FIG. 2.)
`
`In response to a desired pressure input, the valves allow for selective
`
`inflation/deflation of air bladders 122, 124. (Id. at 4:3-10, 7:10-15, 7:63-8:3.) The
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`improved valve enclosure assembly (“VEA”) includes a pressure monitoring port or
`
`tap 146, 240 fluidly coupled to a pressure sensor and to the interior of the VEA. (Id.
`
`at 4:31-36, 6:22-26, 7:63-8:15.) This tap allows for continuous monitoring of the
`
`pressure within the VEA, which due to the substantially sealed environment within
`
`the VEA, is substantially equal to the pressure in the bladder. (Id. at 2:48-3:24, 7:63-
`
`8:15.) Thus, the pressure can be continuously monitored during inflation/deflation,
`
`allowing the system to inflate/deflate until the actual pressure is substantially equal
`
`to the desired pressure, at which point inflation/deflation stops. (Id.; see also Ex.
`
`2026 ¶¶48-51.) This limits the number of times the solenoids are accuated, reducing
`
`heat buildup. (Ex. 2026 ¶51.)
`
`ii. Mittal: USPN 5,629,873 (Ex. 1005).
`
`Mittal is directed to a high-pressure system used to obtain a general
`
`approximation of the desired pressure for commercial/military vehicular tires for
`
`varied road conditions. (Ex. 1005 at p. 1, Abstract, 8:65-9:9, 24:4-7 (pressure
`
`between five and sixty PSI), FIGS. 1a, 2a-2d; Ex. 2026 ¶¶52-79.)
`
`Mittal compensates for differences between sensed and actual pressures, with
`
`the use of “offsets,” which are added or subtracted from the desired pressure to
`
`calculate a target pressure to reduce the extent the system overshoots or undershoots.
`
`(Id. at 22:12-15, 22:45-46, 22:65-66; Ex. 2026 ¶78.) Additionally, Mittal teaches
`
`taking an average of each pressure measurement to prevent false pressure readings,
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`thereby further limiting overshooting or undershooting. (See Ex. 1005 at 17:39-57
`
`(explaining an average pressure must be taken or the system “does not work” and
`
`suggesting 16 pressure sensing samples be used to calculate average pressure),
`
`18:15-18 (explaining during the pressure adjustment cycle 232 an “average actual
`
`dynamic pressure value is compared to the target pressure during an inflation or
`
`deflation adjustment cycle”); Ex. 2026 ¶62.)
`
`Additionally, Mittal suggests some compensation or adjustments to the
`
`system to account for the significant variations in environmental factors faced by
`
`commercial/military vehicles. (Ex. 2026 ¶¶55-57.) First, the offsets used to
`
`calculate the target pressure are replaced after every pressure adjustment cycle. (Ex.
`
`1005 at 22:11-22.) Second, the average pressure is adjusted with a null pressure,
`
`calculated when the system is first turned on. (Id. at 18:54-65, 21:9-12, 22:23-25,
`
`FIG 5A.)
`
`However, Mittal’s system, including its pressure adjustment cycle 232 (FIG.
`
`5B, depicted below), is designed to limit the time spent adjusting pressure to achieve
`
`a pressure in the general ballpark of the desired pressure. First, while Mittal is
`
`clearly aware of continuous monitoring, (see Ex. 1005 at 2:63-3:2, 11:36-37), it
`
`suggests only periodically monitoring the pressure during pressure adjustment
`
`cycles, (see id. at 22:42-44, 22:62-64.) Second, Mittal teaches using “tolerance
`
`pressure bands” (“band A” and “band B”) to “limit the number [of] adjustment
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`cycles,” i.e., to prevent adjustment. (Id. at 17:58-63, 22:23-38 (bands range between
`
`0.5-8.0 PSI).) Indeed, inflation/deflation is only initiated if the averaged current
`
`static pressure is outside the tolerance band. (Id. at 17:58-63, see also id. at 17:46-
`
`53, 18:15-18, 22:39-42, 22:59-62, 23:10-41, FIG. 5B.) Third, Mittal teaches
`
`inflating/deflating the pressure in multiple tires at the same time and in one PSI
`
`increments. (Id. at FIG. 2a-d, 24:4-7.) Fourth, Mittal teaches that inflation or
`
`deflation should continue until the dynami