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
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`An Enclosure Portion and Rear Cover Portion with a Flexible
`
`III.
`
`PETITIONER FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE INVALIDITY THROUGH
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`THE ’172 PATENT AND ITS LITIGATION HISTORY. ........................... 2
`II.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION. ........................................................................ 6
`A. An Enclosure Defining a Substantially Fluidly Sealed Air
`Chamber. ........................................................................................... 7
`B.
`Seal. ................................................................................................... 9
`C.
`Guides and Stops. .............................................................................10
`Pressure Monitor Means. ..................................................................12
`D.
`ANY OF GROUNDS 1 TO 13. ..................................................................14
`A.
`Fail....................................................................................................14
`1.
`(Ground 11). ...........................................................................15
`a)
`Vrzalik Does Not Disclose “Guides and Stops.” ...........15
`b)
`Vrzalik Does Not Disclose the Claimed Enclosure. ......17
`2.
`(Ground 1). .............................................................................20
`a)
`Sealed Air Chamber. .....................................................20
`b)
`Shafer Does Not Disclose “Guides and Stops.” .............23
`c)
`Petitioner Fails to Show Shafer Discloses the PMM. ....26
`
`Petitioner’s Anticipation Grounds Based on Shafer and Vrzalik
`
`Vrzalik Does Not Disclose All Claim Limitations
`
`Shafer Does Not Anticipate Claims 2, 12, or 22
`
`Shafer Does Not Disclose a Substantially Fluidly
`
`i
`
`

`

`B.
`C.
`
`Vrzalik and Shafer Do Not Render Claim 22 Obvious
`
`Petitioner’s Remaining Grounds Do Not Render the Challenged
`
`Shafer in View of Grant Does Not Render Claims 6, 16, 20,
`
`Shafer in View of Kashiwamura (Ground 3) Does Not
`
`Shafer in View of Dye (Ground 5) Does Not Render Claim
`
`Shafer in View of Cammack (Grounds 7 and 8) Does Not
`
`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`Petitioner’s Obviousness Grounds Fail. ............................................27
`1.
`Petitioner Relies on Non-Analogous Art. ................................29
`2.
`(Ground 12). ...........................................................................31
`Claims Obvious. ...............................................................................33
`1.
`and 24 Obvious (Ground 2). ....................................................34
`2.
`Render Claim 2 Obvious. ........................................................37
`3.
`12 Obvious..............................................................................40
`4.
`Render Claims 2, 12, or 22 Obvious. ......................................43
`a)
`and Stops. .....................................................................44
`b)
`Shafer with Cammack. ..................................................52
`5.
`Claim 4 Obvious. ....................................................................53
`6.
`Procedurally and Substantively Deficient................................55
`IV. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS .........................................................58
`Industry Praise. .................................................................................60
`A.
`Copying. ...........................................................................................60
`B.
`Commercial Success. ........................................................................65
`C.
`
`Cammack Does Not Disclose the Claimed Guides
`
`Petitioner Fails to Show a Motivation to Combine
`
`Shafer in View of Ramacier (Ground 13) Does Not Render
`
`Petitioner’s Three-Reference Combination Grounds Are All
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`THE IPR IS BARRED BY PETITIONER’S PRIOR ACTION. .................67
`V.
`VI. PATENT OWNERSHIP AND SERVICE DEFECTS. ................................68
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................69
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l, Inc.,
`174 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................................ 65
`
`Am. Nat’l Mfg. v. Select Comfort Corp., et al.,
`Case No. 16-cv-00582-GHK-JC (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2016) ............................. 67
`
`Apple Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00449, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. July 15, 2015) ............................. 55, 56, 57
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.,
`839 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 60
`
`Arctic Cat, Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................. 29, 36
`
`ATD Corp. v. Lydall, Inc.,
`159 F.3d 534 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 65
`
`Avant Tech., Inc. v. Anza Tech., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00828, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2018) ............................................ 1
`
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 6
`
`Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc.,
`661 F.3d 629 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 15
`
`In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................. 29, 31
`
`Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Phillip Morris Inc.,
`229 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ........................................................................ 66
`
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medline Indus., Inc.,
`IPR2015-00511, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. July 15, 2015)............................................. 1
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`Chapco, Inc. v. Woodway USA, Inc.,
`282 F. Supp. 3d 472 (D. Conn. 2017)............................................................... 12
`
`Cont’l Can Co. U.S.A., Inc. v. Monsanto Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .............................................................. 8, 14, 16
`
`Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc.,
`807 F.2d 955 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .................................................................... 65, 67
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................ 28
`
`DirectTV, LLC v. Qurio Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-02007, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2016) ............................................ 57
`
`Einson-Freeman Co. v. Bohnig,
`43 F.2d 609 (E.D.N.Y. 1930) ..................................................................... 65, 67
`
`Hayward Indus., Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool & Spa, Inc.,
`721 F. App’x 974 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................. 20, 22
`
`Infinera Corp. v. Core Optocal Techs., LLC,
`IPR2018-01259, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2019) ........................................... 12
`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................ 29, 32, 54
`
`Key Pharms. v. Hercon Labs. Corp.,
`161 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 12
`
`Knauf Insulation, Inc. v. Rockwool Int’l A/S,
`No. 2018-1810, 2019 WL 5152356 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2019) ........ 28, 35, 39, 43
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ......................................................................................... 28
`
`Lemelson v. General Mills, Inc.,
`968 F.2d 1202 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ........................................................................ 13
`
`Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co.,
`449 F.3d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................ 64
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 51
`
`Mastercard Int’l Inc. v. Grecia,
`IPR2017-00788, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2017) ............................................ 51
`
`McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................. 28, 57
`
`Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co.,
`848 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................... 28, 35, 39, 43
`
`Mylan Institutional LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.,
`857 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 61
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................ 26
`
`Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. v. Mati Therapeutics, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00448, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. June 26, 2019) .......................................... 26
`
`Omron Oilfield & Marine, Inc. v. MD/TOTCO,
`IPR2013-00265, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2015)......................................... 58
`
`Ex Parte Patrick C. Tessier & Jeffrey S. Hartzler,
`Appeal 2012-006616, 2014 WL 4925550 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 30, 2014) ... 32, 43, 52
`
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................. 37, 40
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................... 6, 12
`
`Plas-Pak Indus., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG,
`600 F. App’x 755 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ....................................................... 33, 37, 55
`
`Rexnord Indus., LLC v. Kappos,
`705 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................ 14
`
`RF Delaware, Inc. v. Pacific Keystone Tech., Inc.,
`326 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................................ 13
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`In re Rouffet,
`149 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ........................................................................ 28
`
`Sandt Tech. Ltd. v. Resco Metal and Plastics Corp.,
`264 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........................................................................ 58
`
`Smiths Indus. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Vital Signs, Inc.,
`183 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................................ 36
`
`Square, Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper,
`IPR2014-00158, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2014) .................................. 43, 52
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,
`511 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................. 1, 14, 25
`
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc.,
`699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................ 59
`
`Veracode, Inc. v. Appthority, Inc.,
`137 F. Supp. 3d 17 (D. Mass. 2015) ........................................................... 65, 67
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .................................................................... 20, 22
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................................ 60
`
`Williams v. Tristar Prods., Inc.,
`No. 7:17-CV-66 (HL), 2019 WL 4040587 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 27, 2019).............. 12
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................ 61
`
`Zero Gravity Inside, Inc. v. Footbalance Sys. Oy,
`No. IPR2015-01769, 2017 WL 505951 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2017) ...................... 26
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ............................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .................................................................................................... 67
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ............................................................................................. passim
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 .................................................................................................. 68
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .......................................................................................... 12. 15
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105 ................................................................................................ 68
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106 ................................................................................................ 68
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`Declaration of Dr. William Messner
`
`First Amended Complaint from ANM v. Select Comfort Corp.
`Antitrust Action
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,509,154 to Shafer
`
`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 Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions from District Court
`
`Denial of Request for Reconsideration in IPR2014-01419
`
`Initial Determination in ITC proceeding, Inv. No. 337-TA-971
`
`Commission Opinion in ITC proceeding, Inv. No. 337-TA-971
`
`A Systematic Approach to Integral Snap-Fit Attachment Design
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2031
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,372,218 to Manson
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,373,526 to Zellos
`
`List of HVAC articles
`
`Field Investigation of Duct System Performance in California
`Light Commercial Buildings
`
`New Technologies for Residential HVAC Ducts
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,652,484 to Shafer
`
`The Mechatronics Handbook
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,857,081 to Gebelein, Jr.
`
`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 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
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`2037
`
`2038
`
`2039
`
`2040
`
`2041
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`2044
`
`2045
`
`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 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
`
`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
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172 versus Dires air controller chart
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172 versus REST air controller chart
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172 versus AIRPO Ningo Forever air
`controller chart
`
`2046
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172 versus Rapid Air air controller chart
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2047
`
`2048
`
`2049
`
`2050
`
`2051
`
`2052
`
`2053
`
`2054
`
`2055
`
`2056
`
`2057
`
`2058
`
`2059
`
`2060
`
`2061
`
`2062
`
`2063
`
`2064
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172 versus NightAir air controller chart
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172 versus Ideal Rest air controller chart
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172 versus Therapedic Airtouch air
`controller chart
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172 versus Cellupedic air controller chart
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172 versus Dream Number air controller
`chart
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172 versus Sealy air controller chart
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172 versus Tempur-Pedic 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”
`
`Declaration of Lukas D. Toft
`
`xii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2065
`
`2066
`
`2067
`
`2068
`
`2069
`
`2070
`
`2071
`
`2072
`
`2073
`
`2074
`
`2075
`
`2076
`
`Transcript of September 24, 2019 Deposition of Dr. Joshua
`Phinney
`
`Transcript of September 25, 2019 Deposition of Dr. Joshua
`Phinney
`
`Transcript of October 7, 2019 Deposition of Robert Giachetti,
`PhD, PE
`
`Transcript of October 8, 2019 Deposition of Robert Giachetti,
`PhD, PE
`
`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
`
`ANMI00178036-ANMI00178041 (District Court Case) – Under
`Seal
`
`xiii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2077
`
`2078
`
`2079
`
`2080
`
`2081
`
`2082
`
`2083
`
`2084
`
`2085
`
`2086
`
`2087
`
`2088
`
`2089
`
`2090
`
`2091
`
`ANMI00133414-ANMI00133422 (District Court Case)
`
`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
`
`ANMI00178030-ANMI00178035 (District Court Case) – Under
`Seal
`
`Explain that Stuff! Webpage “Hovercraft”
`
`RestMed AirFit™ Full face mask User Guide
`
`Orca Webpage “hovercraft-440”
`
`U.S. Patent No. 954,284
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,396,010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,020,176
`
`Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary Excerpt
`
`xiv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Sleep Number Corporation (“PO”) responds to the Institution
`
`of Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of USPN 5,904,172 (“the ’172 Patent”) filed by
`
`American National Manufacturing Inc. (“ANM” or “Petitioner”).
`
`Petitioner fails to establish the challenged claims are invalid under any
`
`asserted Ground. Petitioner’s anticipation Grounds (based on Shafer and Vrzalik)
`
`fail because neither reference discloses every claimed limitation, either expressly or
`
`inherently. See SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1192 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2008). The same is true of Petitioner’s obviousness Grounds (using Shafer and
`
`Vrzalik as primary references), where Petitioner also relies on non-analogous art and
`
`fails to establish a motivation to combine the references and/or a reasonable
`
`likelihood of success in doing so.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner fails to state “with particularity, each claim challenged,
`
`the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that
`
`supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim....” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)
`
`(emphasis added); Avant Tech., Inc. v. Anza Tech., Inc., IPR2018-00828, Paper 7 at
`
`9 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2018) (notice pleading insufficient); see C.R. Bard, Inc. v.
`
`Medline Indus., Inc., IPR2015-00511, Paper 9 at 15 (P.T.A.B. July 15, 2015)
`
`(conclusory statements
`
`insufficient). Indeed, Petitioner (1) misquotes and
`
`incorrectly cites purported evidence, (2) cites unrelated portions of its expert
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`declaration (Ex. 1005 (“Giachetti Report”)), (3) fails to address asserted obviousness
`
`combinations, and (4) provides only conclusory attorney arguments and/or
`
`conclusory expert opinions.
`
`As detailed in the Declaration of Dr. William Messner (Ex. 2040), a professor
`
`and leading expert in the field of mechanical engineering, Petitioner’s anticipation
`
`and obviousness arguments are unsound. Because neither the Petition nor the
`
`Giachetti Report1 establishes unpatentability for any of the challenged claims of the
`
`’172 Patent, the Board should find each claim not unpatentable.
`
`I.
`
`THE ’172 PATENT AND ITS LITIGATION HISTORY.
`
`PO sells adjustable air mattresses, most notably its Sleep Number® bed,
`
`which allows each user to easily adjust the firmness of the bed to a desired pressure
`
`setting. (Ex. 2056 ¶¶5, 8, 13.) This user individualization and customization is the
`
`purpose behind adjustable air mattresses, and the reason PO believes consumers
`
`purchase its beds. (Id.; see also Ex. 2040 ¶¶30-34.)
`
`
`1 Dr. Giachetti has never had professional experience/training in the air mattress
`
`industry (Ex. 2067 at 7:25-8:8, 18:17-20), and the only basis for his knowledge of
`
`the problems facing that industry in 1997 is what the ‘172 Patent and Ex. 1007
`
`disclose (id. at 21:7-25).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`PO has been an innovator in the field of adjustable air mattresses for decades.
`
`PO’s ’172 Patent, titled “Valve Enclosure Assembly,” issued on May 18, 1999 from
`
`Application No. 08/901,144, which was filed July 28, 1997. (Ex. 1001.) The
`
`invention discloses “an improved valve enclosure assembly used to control the
`
`pressure in the inflatable mattress and method to inflate the mattress.” (Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:5-8; Ex. 2040 ¶35.)
`
`The ‘172 Patent recognized that prior art adjustable air mattress systems
`
`(1) required periodically sealing and unsealing of the valves (i.e., “hunting”) in order
`
`to monitor pressure in the air bladder of the mattress, and (2) generated unwanted
`
`heat through repeated actuation of solenoids to open and close valves. (Ex. 1001 at
`
`2:4-33; Ex. 2040 ¶¶39-48.) The prior art systems were not well suited for air
`
`adjustable air mattresses because blower fans and relatively large motors were loud
`
`and prone to leaking and the valves and sealing discs were prone to leaking and
`
`generating unwanted heat buildup. (Ex. 2040 ¶¶40-41, 45-48; Exs. 2020-2022.)
`
`As a result of these recognized deficiencies, the ‘172 Patent relates to the
`
`efficiencies of an improved valve enclosure assembly (“VEA”), which is capable of
`
`pairing with a fluidly sealed pump and which provides the benefits of reduced
`
`leakage, reduced heat and energy usage, and increased production efficiencies,
`
`including improved assembly time and elimination of chemical sealants, as well as
`
`continuous monitoring allowing for accurate monitoring of the pressure during
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`inflation/deflation. (Ex. 1001 at 2:27-55, 7:36-8:6; Ex. 2040 ¶¶13, 39-48, 210-13.)
`
`The improved VEA is used to control the pressure in at least one air bladder in an
`
`adjustable air mattress and allows for a method of continuously monitoring pressure
`
`in that bladder to achieve and maintain a user’s desired pressure. (Ex. 1001 at 1:4-9,
`
`2:56-3:24; Ex. 2040 ¶¶13, 35.) The improved VEA is fluidly coupled intermediate a
`
`pump and at least one air bladder for controlling the inflation of that bladder by
`
`inflated compressed air, and a processor provides commands to the improved VEA
`
`during an inflate/deflate cycle. (Ex. 1001 at Abstract, 2:56-3:24, 8:46-55, 9:27-35,
`
`10:61-11:3, 12:8-18; Ex. 2040 ¶35.)
`
`The improved VEA is described as having two major components—an
`
`enclosure portion 130 and a rear cover portion 132 (described as the “enclosure” and
`
`“rear cover” in the specification)—which together form an internal air chamber of
`
`an enclosure:
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 at Fig. 4; see id. at 4:17-20; Ex. 2040 ¶36.)
`
`The air chamber of the enclosure is substantially fluidly sealed. (Ex. 1001 at
`
`2:64-65, 7:36-8:6; Ex. 2040 ¶35.) The improved VEA also has a pressure monitoring
`
`port 146, which is fluidly coupled to the air chamber of the enclosure. (Ex. 1001 at
`
`4:30-35.) The pressure monitoring port 146 is a part of the pressure monitor means
`
`used to measure the pressure in a mattress air bladder by measuring the pressure in
`
`the air chamber of the improved VEA, which due to the substantially sealed
`
`environment is substantially equal to the pressure in the air bladder. (See id. at 2:48-
`
`50; Ex. 2040 ¶¶37, 47, 210-13.) The pressure can therefore be continuously
`
`monitored during inflation/deflation, allowing the system to inflate/deflate until the
`
`actual pressure is substantially equal to the user’s desired pressure. (Id.; see also Ex.
`
`2076.) Such continuous monitoring allows for accurate monitoring during
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`inflation/deflation and limits the number of times solenoids are accuated, reducing
`
`heat buildup. (Ex. 2040 ¶¶43, 47-48.)
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION.
`
`The Board determines the scope of claims not solely on the basis of the claim
`
`language, but upon giving claims their ordinary and customary meaning as
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the
`
`invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`banc). When readily apparent, claim construction involves little more than accepting
`
`the meaning of commonly understood words. Id. at 1314. When not readily apparent,
`
`intrinsic and then extrinsic evidence may be used to discern the meaning of the term.
`
`Id. at 1314-24. When no construction is offered, the plain and ordinary meaning
`
`(“POM”) should apply. See Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1358
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`Several terms used in the ‘172 Patent are relevant to analyzing the Petition,
`
`including:
`
`1.
`2.
`
`An enclosure defining a substantially fluidly sealed air chamber;
`
`An enclosure being formed of an enclosure portion and a rear cover
`
`portion and a flexible seal ... between the enclosure portion and a rear
`
`cover portion to effect a substantially fluid tight seal therebetween;
`
`3.
`
`A plurality of guides and stops being disposed within the enclosure for
`
`correctly positioning components within the enclosure; and
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`4.
`
`Pressure monitor means (“PMM”).
`
`The PMM is a means-plus-function limitation subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112, ¶6. For the first three limitations, there is no dispute that the POM applies. (See
`
`Pet. at 10.) But even applying Petitioner’s POSITA definition (see Pet. at 8),
`
`Petitioner’s purported POM is contrary to the ‘172 Patent and the knowledge of a
`
`POSITA. (Ex. 2040 ¶¶63-85.)
`
`A. An Enclosure Defining a Substantially Fluidly Sealed Air
`Chamber.
`
`All of the challenged claims require an “enclosure defining a substantially
`
`fluidly sealed air chamber,” to which the POM applies. (Pet. at 10.) Petitioner,
`
`however, ignores the POM and essentially reads “substantially fluidly sealed” out of
`
`the claims to support its invalidity arguments. As discussed above, the air chamber
`
`of the enclosure is substantially fluidly sealed such that it allows for the accurate
`
`monitoring of pressure in the air bladder via the enclosure. (Ex. 1001 at 2:48-50,
`
`2:64-65, 4:30-35; Ex. 2040 ¶¶37, 47, 70; Ex. 2076; see Ex. 2067 at 120:19-123:14.)
`
`The ‘172 Patent discloses the use of flexible seals such as gaskets that aid in
`
`achieving this substantially fluidly sealed air chamber. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 6:63-
`
`67 (“The compression of the deformable gasket therein fluidly seals the rear cover
`
`132 and the enclosure 130...”).)
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`Attempting to force the prior art into the claims, Petitioner asserts that any
`
`enclosure receiving or distributing pressurized air is necessarily substantially fluidly
`
`sealed. (Pet. at 18 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶53-55); Ex. 2067 at 119:3-120:9 (stating if the
`
`enclosure allows pump air to inflate air bladder it is substantially fluidly sealed).)
`
`According to Dr. Giachetti, for example, if you took out all of the gaskets of the ‘172
`
`Patent, “it would leak like crazy” but “would still be probably substantially fluidly
`
`sealed.” (Ex. 2067 at 118:17-119:1.) Dr. Giachetti’s opinion is not supported with
`
`any evidence, such as scientific papers or known theories. And he contradicts his
`
`own opinion, admitting that “something that is not substantially fluidly sealed could
`
`still distribute pressurized air.” (Id. 163:10-164:5.) Dr. Giachetti’s (and Petitioner’s)
`
`construction of a “substantially fluidly sealed air chamber” as anything that
`
`receives/distributed pressurized air is contrary to the understanding of a POSITA.
`
`See Cont’l Can Co. U.S.A., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268-69 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1991). Indeed, Dr. Giachetti recognizes that measuring the pressure is a “big part”
`
`of the ‘172 Patent (Ex. 2067 at 127:15-20), and a different level of sealing may be
`
`required to measure bladder pressure via the enclosure as claimed (id. at 120:19-
`
`123:14.)
`
`A POSITA would understand that forced air, such as from a blower pump,
`
`will not necessarily create a seal or produce a substantially fluidly sealed air
`
`chamber. (Ex. 2040 ¶¶71-75 (explaining that a variety of applications, e.g., HVAC
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`systems, CPAP machines, and hover crafts, as well as prior adjustable air mattress
`
`systems, that receive and/or distribute pressurized air but are not airtight or
`
`substantially fluidly sealed) (citing Exs. 2020-2022).) Contrary to Petitioner’s
`
`unsupported arguments, a POSITA would not consider a leaky structure, such as one
`
`without sealing gaskets, to be substantially fluidly sealed as claimed. (Ex. 2040
`
`¶¶71-77.) Thus, Petitioner’s construction of “substantially fluidly sealed” should be
`
`rejected as c