Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`
`
`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. IPR2019-00514
`
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`____________
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`WA 13963737.14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION. ........................................................................................ 1
`
`I.
`
`II. PO’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ARE IMPROPER. ................................. 1
`
`A. Only the Enclosure Defines a Substantially Fluidly Sealed Air Chamber. .. 3
`
`B. Guides and Stops Are Structural And Functional. ...................................... 5
`
`C. Pressure Monitor Means (“PMM”). ............................................................ 8
`
`III.
`
`GROUNDS 1 TO 13 INVALIDATE THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS. ....11
`
`A. Gifft is Anticipated by each of Vrzalik and Shafer. ...................................11
`
`1. Vrzalik Discloses “Guides and Stops”. ..................................................11
`
`2. Vrzalik Discloses the Claimed Enclosure. .............................................11
`
`3. Shafer Discloses a Substantially Fluidly Sealed Air Chamber. ..............12
`
`4. Shafer Discloses “Guides and Stops”. ...................................................13
`
`5. Shafer Discloses the PMM. ...................................................................15
`
`6. Shafer Anticipates and Petitioner Has Not Improperly Co-Mingled
`Embodiments ................................................................................................15
`
`B. Gifft is Obvious. ........................................................................................16
`
`1. The Prior Art is Analogous Art..............................................................16
`
`C. Petitioner’s Grounds Render the Challenged Claims Obvious. ..................17
`
`1. Shafer in View of Grant Renders Ground 2 Claims Obvious. ................17
`
`2. Shafer in View of Kashiwamura Renders Claim 2 Obvious. .................18
`
`3. Shafer in View of Dye Renders Claim 12 Obvious. ...............................19
`
`4. Shafer in View of Cammack Renders Claims 2, 12, 22 Obvious. ..........19
`
`5. Shafer in View of Ramacier Renders Claim 4 Obvious. ........................20
`
`6. Petitioner’s Combination Grounds Are Procedurally and Substantively
`Sufficient. .....................................................................................................21
`
`PO’S ASSERTED SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS DO NOT
`IV.
`OVERCOME THE OVERWHELMING CASE OF OBVIOUSNESS. ................21
`
`A.
`
`Industry Praise. .........................................................................................22
`
`B. Copying.....................................................................................................22
`
`C. Commercial Success. ................................................................................26
`
`V. ANTITURST ACTIONS DO NOT BAR IPRs. ............................................29
`
`- i -
`
`
`WA 13963737.14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`VI.
`
`SERVICE IS PROPER. .............................................................................29
`
`VII. CONCLUSION. ........................................................................................29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`WA 13963737.14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`In re Bigo,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................ 15
`
`Danmark v. CMI USA, Inc.,
`100 F.Supp.3d 871 (N.D. Cal., 2015) ............................................................... 16
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ......................................................................................... 16
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ...................................................... 2, 6
`
`Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.,
`724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................ 16
`
`Schoenhaus v. Genesco, Inc.,
`440 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 3
`
`Sleep Number Corporation v. American National Manufacturing, Inc.,
`No. 5:18-cv-0357-AB (C.D. Cal. filed Feb. 20, 2018) ............................... 31, 33
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 3
`
`In re Wood,
`599 F.2d 1032 (C.C.P.A. 1979) ........................................................................ 15
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. 312(a)(5)............................................................................................... 29
`
`35 U.S.C. 315(a) ................................................................................................... 29
`
`35 U.S.C. ¶ 103(a) ................................................................................................ 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 ............................................................................................. viii
`
`- iii -
`
`
`WA 13963737.14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`1003
`
`Exhibit Description
`1001 U.S. Patent 5,904,172 (“Gifft”)
`1002
`Relevant excerpts of the File History of U.S. Patent 5,904,172 (Appl.
`08/901,144)
`Relevant excerpts of the Reexamination File History of U.S. Patent
`5,904,172 (Appl. 90/012,456)
`Claim Listing
`1004
`1005 Declaration of Dr. Robert Giachetti (“Giachetti”)
`1006
`Curriculum vitae and testimony list of Dr. Robert Giachetti
`1007
`PCT Publication WO96/13947 (“Shafer”)
`1008 U.S. Patent 5,353,838 (“Grant”)
`1009 U.S. Patent 4,655,505 (“Kashiwamura”)
`1010 U.S. Patent 5,383,894 (“Dye”)
`1011 U.S. Patent 4,309,783 (“Cammack”)
`1012 U.S. Patent 5,044,029 (“Vrzalik”)
`1013 U.S. Patent 3,155,991 (“Dunham”)
`1014 U.S. Patent 5,494,074 (“Ramacier”)
`1015 U.S. Patent 4,540,154
`1016 U.S. Patent 2,364,812
`1017 U.S. Patent 2,713,986
`1018 U.S. Patent 3,346,009
`1019 U.S. Patent 4,368,756
`1020 U.S. Patent 4,526,340
`1021 U.S. Patent 4,988,967
`1022
`First Amended Complaint in Sleep Number Corporation v. Sizewise
`Rentals, L.L.C., No. 5:18-cv-0356-AB (SPx) (C.D. Cal. filed Feb. 20,
`2018)
`First Amended Complaint in Sleep Number Corporation v. American
`National Manufacturing, Inc., No. 5:18-cv-0357-AB (SPx) (C.D. Cal.
`filed Feb. 20, 2018)
`Petition in IPR2014-01419
`1024
`1025 Decision denying institution in IPR2014-01419
`1026 U.S. Patent 3,177,018 (“Goodwin”)
`1027
`Power Transmission Handbook (1st. Ed.), 1993, Chapter 13, pp. 1-22
`1028
`Power Transmission Handbook (1st. Ed.), 1993, Chapter 9, pp. 1-14
`1029 Declaration of Kyle L. Elliott in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`Regarding Service
`
`1023
`
`- iv -
`
`
`WA 13963737.14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`1034
`
`February 12, 2019 In Chambers Order Granting Defendants’ Motion
`to Stay (EDCV 18-00356AB (SPx), Dkt. No. 133; EDCV 18-00357
`AB (SPx), Dkt. No. 134)
`Federal Express Delivery Confirmation of 5,904,172 Inter Partes
`Review Petition to Fox Rothschild LLP
`Federal Express Delivery Confirmation of 5,904,172 Inter Partes
`Review Petition to Fish and Richardson P.C.
`January 10, 2019 Email from Luke Toft re: IPR Service
`Executed Service of Summons in USDC Northern District of Texas,
`Sleep Number Corporation v. American National Manufacturing, Inc.,
`3:17-cv-03517-B
`1035 November 16, 2017 Change of Name Assignment Recordal (Reel:
`044784/Frame: 0925); Conveying Party: Select Comfort Corporation,
`Receiving Party: Sleep Number Corporation
`January 11, 2019 Email from Luke Toft to the Board regarding
`Service of Inter Partes Review Petitions for IPR2019-00497, IPR2019-
`00500, and IPR2019-00514
`February 12, 2019 Joint Stipulation Regarding Stay of District Court
`Actions; Case Nos. 5:18-cv-00356 AB (SPx), 5:18-cv-00357 (Dkt.
`141)
`Federal Express Shipping Tracking History of 5,904,172 Inter Partes
`Review Petition to Fox Rothschild LLP
`Federal Express Shipping Tracking History of 5,904,172 Inter Partes
`Review Petition to Fish and Richardson P.C.
`September 5, 2019 Teleconference Transcript regarding request for
`additional discovery and exceed pages
`1041 Dun & Bradstreet Screen Capture – Sleep Number Corporation Profile
`1042 Dun & Bradstreet Screen Capture – American National Manufacturing
`Inc. Profile
`Plaintiff’s First Supplemental Responses to Defendants’ First Set of
`Interrogatories (Nos. 1-9); UDSC Central District California 5:18-cv-
`00356/00357
`Joint Stipulation to Use ITC 337-TA-971 Discovery in District Court
`action (5:18-cv-00357, Dkt. 89)
`Third Request to Meet & Confer Regarding Non-Compliance with
`Discovery communication from Jaspal Hare to Elizabeth Patton dated
`October 19, 2018 (UDSC Central District California 5:18-cv-
`00356/00357)
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`- v -
`
`
`WA 13963737.14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`1053
`
`1054
`1055
`1056
`
`1046 April 3, 2018 Sizewise’s Initial Comment Supporting Vacatur
`(USITTC 337-TA-971)
`1047 Declaration of Craig S. Miller in Support of Petitioner's Opposition to
`Patent Owner's Motion for Additional Discovery (Redacted & Under
`Seal)
`1048 Aug. 11, 2006 Consultant Agreement - SC Corporation and
`ANM/Craig Miller
`IPR 5 - Nautilus Warranty Exposure (Under Seal)
`1049
`1050 Declaration of Kyle L. Elliott in Support of Petitioner's Opposition to
`Patent Owner's Motion for Additional Discovery
`1051 ANMI00133414-00133422 Pump History Document
`1052
`2019-09-12 Petitioner's Ex Parte Application to Amend Protective
`Order [-357, Dkt. 165]
`2019-09-26 Order Granting Ex Parte Application to Modify Protective
`Order [-357, Dkt. 173]
`Transcript of December 4, 2019 Deposition of Robert Nunn
`Transcript of December 5, 2019 Deposition of George Edwards
`Transcript of December 6, 2019 Deposition of George Edwards –
`Under Seal, redacted version filed publicly
`2019-12-19 Petitioner's Proposed Additional Discovery Requests
`1057
`2019-12-19 Bear Declaration in Support of Mtn for Addt'l Discovery
`1058
`Sleep Number 10K 2019
`1059
`1060 About Us Sleep Number Corporation
`1061
`Sleep Number For Immediate Release
`1062
`2012-11-16 USDC Minn Initial Complaint [Doc 1]
`1063
`Transcript of December 11, 2019 Deposition of Dr. William Messner
`1064
`Transcript of December 12, 2019 Deposition of Dr. William Messner
`1065
`Transcript of December 18, 2019 Deposition of Dr. John Abraham
`1066
`Transcript of January 8, 2020 Deposition of Dr. William Messner -
`Under Seal, redacted version filed publicly
`Transcript of January 8, 2020 Deposition of Carl Degen - Under Seal,
`redacted version filed publicly
`Transcript of January 9, 2020 Deposition of Paul J. Mahoney – Under
`Seal, redacted version filed publicly
`
`1067
`
`1068
`
`- vi -
`
`
`WA 13963737.14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`1070
`
`1073
`
`1074
`
`1075
`
`1076
`
`1069 Declaration of Robert Giachetti in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to
`Patent Owner’s Response
`Exhibit 6 to Dr. Robert Giachetti Deposition – Annotated PCT
`Publication WO96/13947 (“Shafer”)
`1071 Declaration of Matthew Lynde in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to
`Patent Owner’s Response
`1072 Declaration of Craig Miller, Jr. in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to
`Patent Owner’s Response
`Exhibit 1 to Craig Miller Declaration – Identification of Spreadsheet
`Column Headings
`Exhibit 2 to Craig Miller Declaration – Dires Record of Sleep Number
`Actions
`Exhibit 3 to Craig Miller Declaration – Dires Financial Statements;
`Under Seal, redacted version filed publicly
`Exhibit 6 to Dr. William Messner Deposition – Annotated PCT
`Publication WO96/13947 (“Shafer”)
`Transcript of April 14, 2016 Deposition of Eugene F. Duval - Under
`Seal
`Exhibit 6 to Eugene F. Duval Deposition – Annotated U.S. Patent No.
`5,652,484 (“Shafer”)
`January 22, 2020 United States International Trade Commission Order
`issued in Investigation No. 337-TA-971
`
`
`1077
`
`1078
`
`1079
`
`- vii -
`
`
`WA 13963737.14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION.
`
`Nothing in Patent Owner’s Response (“POR”; Paper 46) refutes the strong
`
`grounds for obviousness in the Petition (“Pet.”; Paper 2) for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172 (“’172 Patent” or “Gifft”; Ex. 1001) that led
`
`this Board to institute (“Institution”; Paper 10) this IPR on claims 2, 4, 6, 12, 16, 20,
`
`22, and 24. Patent Owner’s (“PO’s”) secondary considerations lack nexus and are
`
`insufficient. The claimed invention is not novel. It was well within a POSITA’s
`
`knowledge and technical grasp.
`
`II.
`
`PO’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ARE IMPROPER.
`
`Claims are given the ordinary and customary meaning they would have to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention. A
`
`POSITA “is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular
`
`claim…, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips
`
`v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The specification
`
`is important for claim construction as the “rules of the PTO require that application
`
`claims must ‘conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the
`
`specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or
`
`antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims
`
`may be ascertainable by reference to the description.’” Id. at 1316-17 (citing 37
`
`C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1)). Examination of both the claims and specification is required,
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`since the applicants necessarily chose “claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112 ¶2. A patentee’s emphasis on the importance of a feature as solving a problem
`
`in the art is a factor in determining the construction of a claim. See Renishaw PLC
`
`v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`Initially, PO confuses the two primary styles of pumps the ‘172 Patent
`
`contemplates and their relationship to its claim terminology. First is a “blower”
`
`pump, analogous to a fan, depicted in prior art FIG. 1 of the ’172 Patent, and
`
`expressly contemplated for use with the claimed invention. Ex. 1001, 3:64-6. Shafer
`
`depicts a “blower” pump (e.g., FIG. 10), among other references. Id. A blower pump
`
`does not seal when unpowered. Hence, a pressure monitor port must be downstream
`
`of a valve (or bladder-side) as shown in FIGS. 1 and 9 of the ’172 Patent. Pressure
`
`can be monitored only after the valve is closed. See Id. 8:7-15 and 3:64-67. The
`
`’172 Patent describes this as non-continuous monitoring. See Id. 8:7-15. Second is
`
`a “linear” pump, akin to a bicycle pump. While not depicted, the ‘172 Patent’s
`
`specification describes a “linear” pump and contemplates its use. See Id. 7:36-37.
`
`If unpowered, linear pumps are sealed, allowing the pressure monitoring port to be
`
`located on the enclosure (between the valve and pump). See Id. FIG. 4, 146. The
`
`’172 Patent describes this as allowing “continuous” monitoring. See Id. 7:63-8:6.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`WA 13963737.14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`A. Only the Enclosure Defines a Substantially Fluidly Sealed Air
`Chamber.
`
`PO appears to concede that the phrase “substantially fluidly sealed air
`
`chamber,” which appears in each of the challenged claims, should be construed
`
`according to its plain and ordinary meaning (“POM”). See POR 7-9 (providing no
`
`definition for this phrase). Nonetheless, PO’s argument relies on an inherent
`
`construction. See POR 8-9 (discussing to what degree of sealing “substantially”
`
`requires, asserting “blower pump” excluded, and “sealing gaskets” required). These
`
`arguments are improper on a number of grounds.
`
`First, these arguments require the Board to engage in detailed claim
`
`construction when PO itself has not put forth an express construction. This deprives
`
`Petitioner an ability to fairly respond and also deprives this Board the ability to
`
`conduct a proper claim construction analysis.
`
`Second, PO’s inherent constructions improperly attempt to read in limitations
`
`and violate principles of claim differentiation/vitiation (e.g., a sealing gasket or
`
`flexible seal is recited in, e.g., claim 6 but not claim 2). See, e.g., Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 and 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“We also acknowledge that
`
`the purpose underlying the Texas Digital line of cases—to avoid the danger of
`
`reading limitations from the specification into the claim—is sound,” and “the
`
`presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a
`
`presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.”).
`- 3 -
`
`
`WA 13963737.14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`Third, PO’s arguments (e.g., re a blower-pump embodiment being excluded)
`
`improperly exclude preferred embodiments. Ex. 1001, 8:7-15 (describing a blower
`
`pump as shown in FIG. 1 being within the ambit of the invention shown in FIG. 9
`
`(with taps 240 on valves), and this embodiment is claimed to be “substantially fluidly
`
`sealed” (claim 10)); see, e.g., Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,
`
`1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (an interpretation excluding a preferred embodiment is “rarely,
`
`if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.” (citations
`
`omitted)).
`
`Fourth, PO’s arguments result in the same phrase being given different
`
`meanings in different claims. For example, “substantially fluidly sealed” would
`
`improperly have a different meaning in claim 10 to allow for a blower pump. See,
`
`e.g., Schoenhaus v. Genesco, Inc., 440 F.3d 1354, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]here
`
`is a presumption that the same terms appearing in different portions of the claims
`
`should be given the same meaning . . . .” (quotations and citation omitted)).
`
`PO’s expert states a POSITA would understand that Gifft’s enclosure is
`
`“substantially fluidly sealed” so that the system can monitor the pressure and do so
`
`with accuracy, citing to the Abstract, and 2:48-51 (Ex. 2040 ¶76), arguing that only
`
`fluidly sealed art is analogous, despite the claim’s inclusion of “substantially.” When
`
`confronted, Dr. Messner conceded that “substantially fluidly sealed” does not mean
`
`leak-free (Ex. 1066, 146:7-9). Lacking any specific educational training in
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`WA 13963737.14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`pneumatics (Ex. 1063, 18:20-12), he could not explain the difference between a
`
`“fluidily sealed” and a “substantially fluidly sealed” enclosure, and was “unwilling
`
`to provide an answer on” whether any embodiment of Gifft is fluidly sealed. (Ex.
`
`1066, 147:7-149:15). Their expert’s refusal to answer urges an adverse inference.
`
`As to accuracy, Dr. Messner agrees there is no support in Gifft for the notion of
`
`accuracy. Ex. 1066, 124:15-562:6. Again, the claims recite only that the enclosure
`
`is “substantially fluidly sealed,” and neither the claims nor the specification relate to
`
`accuracy of monitoring pressure.
`
`Therefore, the POM of “enclosure defining a substantially fluidly sealed air
`
`chamber” does not mean the “enclosure” is leaky if it does not have sealing gaskets,
`
`as PO improperly suggests (POR 9), nor does it mean the enclosure creates a
`
`“substantially sealed environment” (Ex. 2040 ¶37) where this characteristic would
`
`implicitly extend to what is connected to it (POR 7, 9). Ex. 1069 ¶10-13. PO’s
`
`characterization that a POSITA would “understand” the POM of “substantially
`
`fluidly sealed” is contrary to the claims and specification. Ex. 1069 ¶8-10. Therefore,
`
`PO’s inherent constructions—and arguments based on them—should be rejected. If
`
`a construction is to be applied it should be that it is, “sealed sufficiently to deliver
`
`compressed air when operating”.
`
`B. Guides and Stops Are Structural And Functional.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`WA 13963737.14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`PO proposes another unsupported inherent construction. Gifft does not teach
`
`or claim “guides and stops” in a way that a POSITA would read structural features
`
`out of the claims. Ex. 1069 ¶21. This construction-without-construction approach
`
`again deprives both Petitioner and the Board the opportunity to conduct proper claim
`
`construction. The limitations have structural and functional language: “a plurality
`
`of guides and stops being disposed within the enclosure for correctly positioning
`
`components within the enclosure.” Ex. 1001, Claims 2, 12 (emphasis added). The
`
`specification defines the valve enclosure assembly 100 as an enclosure 130 and a
`
`rear cover 132. Ex. 1001, 4:17-20. The specific structure of the guides 196 and
`
`stops 198 as within the enclosure, and function of the features for correctly
`
`positioning components within the enclosure, are supported by the drawings,
`
`specification, and use of the terms in the claims. Ex. 1001, 5:34-44, FIGS. 4, 7-9,
`
`11.
`
`PO impermissibly reads out the structural features and reads in the subjective
`
`functional terms “assembly enabler” and “locating feature.” Under the proposed
`
`construction a “guide” becomes any assembly enabler for guiding components.
`
`POR 10-11. PO also construes “stop” to become any locating feature that arrests
`
`travel. Id. Nothing in Gifft supports incorporation of these functional limitations into
`
`the claim or reading out structural features. Instead, PO’s POM is a claim
`
`construction that removes the allegedly inventive structures from the claims. Ex.
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`WA 13963737.14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`1001, 5:34-42 (disclosing “guides 196” found on the “inner surface 194” of the
`
`“bottom 170” of the enclosure 130 positioning solenoids within the “improved valve
`
`enclosure assembly 100”). A POSITA would understand Dr. Messner’s construction
`
`as contrary to its use in the claims and specification. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318; Ex.
`
`1069 ¶21.
`
`When asked directly about “guides and stops,” Dr. Messner’s construction
`
`appeared aimed at merely avoiding prior art—arguing that structures which stop are
`
`not “stops” unless the designer expressly designated them so (Ex. 1066, 102:13-
`
`103:13 (when discussing the stops marked “B” on Shafer (Ex. 1076, Fig. 18b), Dr.
`
`Messner believes feature “B” is a locking feature, and therefore does not “stop” due
`
`to a characteristic of the feature “A”). Similarly, a structure that guides is not a
`
`“guide” because it merely “urges” another component to its correct alignment Ex.
`
`1066, 93:17-99:7 (when discussing the guides marked “A” on Shafer (Ex. 1076, Fig.
`
`18b), Dr. Messner believes “guide” is a “loaded term in this [] litigation” and adopts
`
`a different term “corrective urging force” instead, resulting in feature “A” not being
`
`a “guide” because any urging would be an “incidental function.”). The Board should
`
`view Dr. Messner’s testimony as a mouthpiece for counsel’s wordplay. Ex. 1066,
`
`31:3-32:9 (Dr. Messner states counsel provides a first draft of his declaration).
`
`In contrast, Dr. Giachetti explains that a POSITA would understand “guides”
`
`and “stops” as separate and distinct structural features disposed within the enclosure
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`WA 13963737.14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`having the corresponding claimed function. (Ex. 1005, ¶38; Ex. 2068, 303:13-
`
`305:22, 309:19-311:11 (resolving discrepancies in the low quality Gifft drawings
`
`and specification). The Board should discredit, and not adopt, PO’s functional claim
`
`construction for the POM of “guides and stops,” and adopt a true POM as written in
`
`the claims, disclosed in the specification, and understood by a POSITA. Simply put,
`
`a structure that stops is a “stop,” and a structure that guides is a “guide.”
`
`C.
`
`Pressure Monitor Means (“PMM”).
`
`Petitioner’s constructions for PMM are consistent. The three constructions
`
`give meaning to slight variations in wording used for the PMM limitations in
`
`different claims which correspond to different embodiments. To summarize (pin
`
`citations to Gifft, Ex. 1001):
`
`• PMM1: is PO’s definition for all claims that appears to broadly permit
`
`a port (146) to be located on the enclosure (130) as shown in FIG. 4 or
`
`port (240) to be located on a valve (218) as shown in FIG. 9.
`
`• PMM2: is Petitioner’s proposed definition for claims 2 and 6 (which
`
`expressly require “continuous” monitoring) is that PMM requires a port
`
`(146) to be located on the enclosure (130) as shown in FIG. 4.
`
`• PMM3: is Petitioner’s proposed definition for claims 12 and 16 (which
`
`do not expressly require “continuous” monitoring) is that PMM
`
`requires a port (240) to be located on a valve (218) as shown in FIG. 9.
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`WA 13963737.14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`The specification supports these definitions. See Ex. 1001, 7:63-8:15.
`
`Although less than clear, a POSITA would understand that the “continuous”
`
`monitoring embodiment of FIG. 4 is for use with a “linear” pump (which seals when
`
`unpowered), thus allowing measurement of pressure at the enclosure. See Ex. 1001,
`
`7:63-8:6 and 7:36-37. In contrast, if a “blower” pump (such as shown in FIG. 1) is
`
`used, which does not seal when unpowered, then ports must be on the downstream-
`
`side (or bladder-side) of the valve (FIGS. 1 and 9) with pressure being monitored
`
`only after the valve is closed. See Ex. 1001, 8:7-15 and 3:64-67.
`
`PMM2 and PMM3 must be adopted to keep the challenged claims internally
`
`consistent. The two disclosed embodiments’ structural elements of “pressure
`
`monitor means” are reflected in the words of the claim. Claims 12 and 16 recite a
`
`“valve operably coupled to the enclosure,” in the body of the claim, and further
`
`down, the structure of “pressure monitor means” as being (1) “operably coupled to
`
`the processor” and (2) “being in fluid communication with the at least one valve”
`
`(emphasis added); and, the claimed function is “for monitoring the pressure in the at
`
`least one bladder.” Ex. 1001, 10:61-11:19, 12:8-36.
`
`Claims 2 and 6 do not recite a valve in the body of the claim. Thus, the
`
`meaning of “pressure monitor means” must be different. Here, the structure of
`
`“pressure monitor means” is (1) “operably coupled to the processor” and (2) “being
`
`in fluid communication with the at least one bladder.” The function is “ continuously
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`WA 13963737.14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`monitoring the pressure in the at least one bladder.” The absence of a valve in Claims
`
`2 and 6 structurally distinguishes the applicability of PMM2 and PMM3.
`
`The specification compliments Petitioner’s interpretations and resolves the
`
`the parties’ construction differences. To distinguish the prior art, the inventors
`
`identified only two separate locations for structural features associated with
`
`monitoring pressure in fluid communication with a bladder: (1) a “monitor tab 240”
`
`on and fluidly coupled to the air passageway of a valve body 220 (Ex. 1001, 6:22-
`
`24); or (2) a “port 146” on and fluidly coupled to the interior of the “improved valve
`
`enclosure assembly 100,” and monitoring pressure at these specific locations (Ex.
`
`1001, 4:30-36). Ex. 1005 ¶¶32-34.
`
`Turning to the disclosure, the only places the function of “pressure monitor”
`
`or “pressure monitoring” appear is with respect to a “port 146” or “tab 240” at a
`
`specific location on the improved VEA’s structure. Ex. 1069 ¶30. Gifft discloses a
`
`“pressure monitoring port 146,” shown as part of the “rear cover 132” in all but FIG.
`
`10, with the port in direct communication with the VEA’s interior. Ex. 1001, 4:31-
`
`32, 5:49, 8:5. An alternative preferred embodiment, depicted in FIG. 9, illustrates a
`
`“pressure monitor tab 240 [] disposed on the valve body 220 of the two valves 218,”
`
`and it is this “tab 240” that “has an air passageway 222 defined therein that is fluidly
`
`coupled to the air passageway 22 of the valve body 220.” Ex. 1001, 6:22-26. These
`
`are the only clues Gifft offers for the pressure monitor structures of the disclosed
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`WA 13963737.14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`improved VEA. Ex. 1069 ¶30. The Board should decline to adopt PO’s construction
`
`of PMM and apply PMM2 and PMM3 as appropriate.
`
`III. GROUNDS 1 TO 13 INVALIDATE THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS.
`
`A. Gifft is Anticipated by each of Vrzalik and Shafer.
`
`1.
`
`Vrzalik Discloses “Guides and Stops”.
`
`Petitioner properly cites to Vrzalik disclosure of “guides and stops”. Pet. 56-
`
`57. Petitioner cites to Vrzalik, and Dr. Giachetti’s declaration regarding this
`
`limitation (¶¶236-237), in support of a POSITA’s understanding that Vrzalik’s
`
`supports 142 guide the motor 138 into position within the airtight air box 124, and
`
`that the interior surface of the box 124 is a stop for positioning the valve within the
`
`box 124. PO does not dispute that Giachetti’s declaration addresses limitation 2.b.2.
`
`POR 17-18.
`
`2.
`
`Vrzalik Discloses the Claimed Enclosure.
`
`Petitioner also properly cites to Vrzalik’s disclosure of limitations 6.b.1 –
`
`6.b.3. Pet. 58. Petitioner cites to Vrzalik, and Dr. Giachetti’s declaration regarding
`
`this limitation (¶247), in support of a POSITA’s understanding that Vrzalik’s two-
`
`part enclosure with a seal is analogous to Gifft’s two-part enclosure with a seal. Pet.
`
`58. In ¶¶247 Dr. Giachett’s preceding analysis of claim 2 (¶¶221-244) discusses the
`
`two-part valve enclosure assembly taught by Vrzalik as having the gasket 115
`
`(¶223).
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`WA 13963737.14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`3.
`
`Shafer Discloses a Substantially Fluidly Sealed Air Chamber.
`
`A POSITA would understand that Shafer’s “air distribution unit 206” is
`
`substantially fluidly sealed, Ex. 1005 ¶¶53-55, because it receives and distributes
`
`pressurized air. Pet. 17-18. Dr. Giachetti admits that for Shafer to operate as
`
`intended, it must be substantially sealed to “take air from the blower and reroute it
`
`to the bladder,” otherwise it cannot perform its intended function. Ex. 2068, 319:14-
`
`321:5. Further, there are several different ways at the time of invention to
`
`substantially seal the multiple part enclosure of Shafer. Id.
`
`PO and its expert intentionally misread Shafer, interpreting Fig. 18b as
`
`disclosing an air distribution unit with a “snap-fit portions 332” that would leak
`
`(POR 21-22). Reference number 332 is not the disclosed snap-fit portion—it is the
`
`“pressurized air inlet” in “air distribution unit 206” in Fig. 17. Ex. 1007, 22:16-20
`
`(embodiment 206’), 22:22-23:1 (embodiment 206). Dr. Giachetti understands Shafer
`
`uses number 332 for two different elements (Ex. 2068, 308:5-309:17). A POSITA
`
`is capable of resolving the discrepancies, understanding that Shafer discloses Gifft’s
`
`claimed “guides” and “stops” (Ex. 2068, 309:18-319:12 (marking guides and stops
`
`on Shafer (Ex. 1070) during his deposition)) In turn, a POSITA would understand
`
`that Shafer discloses a substantially fluidly sealed air chamber (Ex. 2068, 319:14-
`
`320:12). Dr. Messner admits that Shafer could be substantially fluidly sealed even
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`WA 13963737.14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`though it is not expressly stated, and that the air distribution unit 206 of Shafer is
`
`“pressurized.” Ex. 2040 ¶91; Ex. 1066, 145:9-146:5.
`
`PO further asserts that because Shafer discloses a blower, that somehow
`
`means unit 206 is not being substantially fluidly sealed (POR 22-23). However, Dr.
`
`Messner agrees that the VEA of Gifft also envisions using a “blower pump”. Ex.
`
`1066, 159:15-160:17. A POSITA would recognize that Shafer’s air distribution unit
`
`is a substantially fluidly sealed air chamber.
`
`4.
`
`Shafer Discloses “Guides and Stops”.
`
`Carried by their purely functional construction of the POM of “guides and
`
`stops,” PO attempts to capitalize on their own prior art’s poor quality to peddle a
`
`misinterpretation of Shafer, arguing th