Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,958,107
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`QUEST USA CORP.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`POPSOCKETS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`Case No.: IPR2019-01067
`U.S. Patent No. 9,958,107
`___________________
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,958,107
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,958,107
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1 
`A. 
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 1 
`B. 
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2 
`C. 
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 2 
`D. 
`Service Information ............................................................................... 2 
`POWER OF ATTORNEY ............................................................................... 3 
`III. 
`IV.  PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 3 
`V.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 3 
`VI.  PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED ..................... 4 
`A. 
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ............................................................ 4 
`B. 
`How the Construed Claims are Unpatentable Under the Statutory
`Grounds Identified in 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) and Supporting
`Evidence Relied Upon to Support the Challenge .................................. 7 
`VII.  FACTUAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................... 8 
`A.  Declaration Evidence ............................................................................ 8 
`B. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill ......................................................................... 8 
`C. 
`Background of the Technology ............................................................. 8 
`D.  Overview of the ‘107 Patent ................................................................ 16 
`E. 
`The Prosecution History of the ‘107 Patent ........................................ 21 
`VIII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 22 
`A. 
`Expandable Socket .............................................................................. 24 
`
` 
`
`i
`
`

`

` 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent 9,958,107
`
`Button .................................................................................................. 24 
`B. 
`Extends Outward from the [Button/Platform]..................................... 24 
`C. 
`D.  An Inner Wall Spaced Radially Inward of the Outer Wall ................. 25 
`IX.  DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ............................................ 26 
`A.  GROUND 1: The Barnett PCT in view of the Karmatz Provisional
`render claims 1, 5, 7–12, 14, and 15 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 26 
`1. 
`Claim 1 Preamble: “An expandable socket for attachment to a
`portable media player or a portable media player case” ........... 26 
`Claim 1[a]: “a platform adapted to engage a portion of the
`portable media player or the portable media player case” ........ 28 
`Claim 1[b]: “a button that is spaced from and movable relative
`to the platform” ......................................................................... 29 
`Claim 1[c]: “a biasing element disposed between the platform
`and the button, the biasing element arranged to bias the button
`away from the platform” ........................................................... 30 
`Claim 1[d]: “a lock configured to releasably secure the button
`to the platform, the lock comprising a first projection carried by
`the button and arranged to engage a second projection carried
`by the platform when the lock releasably secures the button to
`the platform” ............................................................................. 33 
`Claim 1[e]: “the first projection extends outward from the
`button in a first direction and the second projection extends
`outward from the platform in a second direction opposite the
`first direction” ........................................................................... 34 
`Claim 1[f]: “the lock comprises a recess defined by the
`platform or the button, the recess configured to receive the first
`or second projection when the lock releasably secures the
`button to the platform” .............................................................. 35 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
` 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent 9,958,107
`
`8. 
`
`Claim 5[a]: “The expandable socket of claim 1, further
`comprising a skin arranged between the platform and the
`button” ....................................................................................... 36 
`Claim 5[b]: “the skin surrounds the biasing element” ............. 37 
`9. 
`10.  Claim 7: “The expandable socket of claim 5, wherein the skin
`comprises at least one folding section” ..................................... 37 
`11.  Claim 8: “The expandable socket of claim 1, wherein the
`biasing element comprises a conical coil spring” ..................... 38 
`12.  Claim 9 Preamble: “An expandable socket for attachment to a
`portable media player or a portable media player case” ........... 39 
`13.  Claim 9[a]: “a platform adapted to engage a portion of the
`portable media player or the portable media player case” ........ 39 
`14.  Claim 9[b]: “a button that is spaced from and movable relative
`to the platform” ......................................................................... 39 
`15.  Claim 9[c]: “a skin arranged between the platform and the
`button, wherein the skin comprises at least two folding
`sections” .................................................................................... 39 
`16.  Claim 9[d]: “a biasing element disposed between the platform
`and the button, the biasing element arranged to bias the button
`away from the platform” ........................................................... 40 
`17.  Claim 9[e]: “a first projection carried by the button and
`arranged to selectively engage a second projection carried by
`the platform to releasably secure the button to the platform” .. 40 
`18.  Claim 9[f]: “the first projection extends outward from the
`button in a first direction and the second projection extends
`outward from the platform in a second direction opposite the
`first direction” ........................................................................... 41 
`19.  Claim 10[a]: “The expandable socket of claim 9, wherein the
`skin is movable between a collapsed configuration and an
`expanded configuration” ........................................................... 41 
`
`iii
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent 9,958,107
`
`20.  Claim 10[b]: “the at least two folding sections are configured to
`fold onto one another as the skin is moved from the expanded
`configuration to the expanded configuration” .......................... 42 
`21.  Claim 11[a]: “The expandable socket of claim 9, wherein the
`skin has a first end coupled to the button and a second end
`coupled to the platform” ........................................................... 43 
`22.  Claim 11[b]: “the skin having a first diameter at the first end
`and a second diameter at the second end” ................................ 44 
`23.  Claim 11[c]: “the second diameter being less than the first end”
` ................................................................................................... 45 
`24.  Claim 12: “The expandable socket of claim 9, wherein the skin
`surrounds the biasing element” ................................................. 45 
`25.  Claim 14: “The expandable socket of claim 9, wherein the
`biasing element comprises a conical coil spring” ..................... 45 
`26.  Claim 15[a]: “The expandable socket of claim 9, further
`comprising a recess defined by the platform or the button” ..... 45 
`27.  Claim 15[b]: “the recess configured to selectively receive the
`first or second projection to releasably secure the button to the
`platform” ................................................................................... 46 
`GROUND 2: The Barnett PCT and the Karmatz Provisional in view
`of the ‘031 patent render claims 6, 13, and 16 obvious under 35
`U.S.C. § 103. ....................................................................................... 46 
`1. 
`Claim 6: “The expandable socket of claim 5, wherein the skin
`comprises an elastomeric material” .......................................... 46 
`Claim 13: “The expandable socket of claim 9, wherein the skin
`comprises an elastomeric material” .......................................... 47 
`Claim 16 Preamble: “An expandable socket for attachment to a
`portable media player or a portable media player case” ........... 47 
`Claim 16[a]: “a platform adapted to engage a portion of the
`portable media player or the portable media player case” ........ 47 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`iv
`
` 
`
` 
`
`B. 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent 9,958,107
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`9. 
`
`Claim 16[b]: “an elastomeric skin coupled to the platform and
`having at least two folding sections defining an outer wall and
`an inner wall spaced radially inward of the outer wall” ........... 47 
`Claim 16[c]: “the skin including a cavity defined by the inner
`wall and being deformable between a collapsed configuration
`and an expanded configuration” ............................................... 49 
`Claim 16[d]: “a button coupled to the skin opposite the
`platform” ................................................................................... 50 
`Claim 16[e]: “the button being disposed a first distance from
`the platform when the skin occupies the collapsed configuration
`and a second distance greater than the first distance from the
`platform when the skin occupies the expanded configuration” 50 
`Claim 16[f]: “a spring arranged within the cavity of the skin
`between the platform and the button, such that the spring is
`surrounded by the inner wall of the skin” ................................. 51 
`10.  Claim 16[g]: “the spring biasing the button away from the
`platform to urge the skin into the expanded configuration” ..... 51 
`11.  Claim 16[h]: “a lock for selectively coupling the button to the
`platform such that the skin occupies the collapsed configuration
`when the button and platform are coupled” .............................. 52 
`12.  Claim 16[i]: “the lock comprising a first projection carried by
`the button and arranged to engage a second projection carried
`by the platform when the lock selectively couples the button to
`the platform” ............................................................................. 53 
`GROUND 3: The Barnett PCT in view of Dai render claims 1, 5, 7,
`9–12, and 15 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. .................................... 53 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 53 
`2. 
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 55 
`3. 
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 55 
`4. 
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 56 
`
`v
`
` 
`
` 
`
`C. 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent 9,958,107
`
`E. 
`
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 56 
`5. 
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 56 
`6. 
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 56 
`7. 
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 57 
`8. 
`D.  GROUND 4: The Barnett PCT and Dai in view of the ‘031 patent
`render claims 6, 13, and 16 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. .............. 57 
`1. 
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 57 
`2. 
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 57 
`3. 
`Claim 16 .................................................................................... 57 
`GROUND 5: The Barnett PCT and Dai in further view of Stager
`render claims 8 and 14 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. ..................... 58 
`1. 
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 58 
`2. 
`Claim 14 .................................................................................... 59 
`GROUND 6: Chen ‘236 anticipates claims 1–4 under 35 U.S.C. §
`102(a). .................................................................................................. 60 
`1. 
`Claim 1 Preamble ...................................................................... 60 
`2. 
`Claim 1[a] ................................................................................. 61 
`3. 
`Claim 1[b] ................................................................................. 61 
`4. 
`Claim 1[c] ................................................................................. 62 
`5. 
`Claim 1[d] ................................................................................. 63 
`6. 
`Claim 1[e] ................................................................................. 64 
`7. 
`Claim 1[f] .................................................................................. 64 
`8. 
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 65 
`9. 
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 65 
`
`F. 
`
`vi
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent 9,958,107
`
`10.  Claim 4[a] ................................................................................. 65 
`11.  Claim 4[b] ................................................................................. 66 
`G.  GROUND 7: Chen ‘376 anticipates claims 1–4, 9, 10, 13, and 15
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). .................................................................... 66 
`1. 
`Claim 1 Preamble ...................................................................... 66 
`2. 
`Claim 1[a] ................................................................................. 67 
`3. 
`Claim 1[b] ................................................................................. 67 
`4. 
`Claim 1[c] ................................................................................. 68 
`5. 
`Claim 1[d] ................................................................................. 69 
`6. 
`Claim 1[e] ................................................................................. 71 
`7. 
`Claim 1[f] .................................................................................. 71 
`8. 
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 72 
`9. 
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 72 
`10.  Claim 4[a] ................................................................................. 73 
`11.  Claim 4[b] ................................................................................. 73 
`12.  Claim 9 Preamble ...................................................................... 73 
`13.  Claim 9[a] ................................................................................. 73 
`14.  Claim 9[b] ................................................................................. 74 
`15.  Claim 9[c] ................................................................................. 74 
`16.  Claim 9[d] ................................................................................. 74 
`17.  Claim 9[e] ................................................................................. 75 
`18.  Claim 9[f] .................................................................................. 75 
`19.  Claim 10[a] ............................................................................... 75 
`
`vii
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent 9,958,107
`
`20.  Claim 10[b] ............................................................................... 76 
`21.  Claim 13 .................................................................................... 76 
`22.  Claim 15[a] ............................................................................... 76 
`23.  Claim 15[b] ............................................................................... 76 
`H.  GROUND 8: Chen ‘376 in view of Dai renders claims 5–7, 12, and 16
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. .......................................................... 77 
`1. 
`Claim 5[a] ................................................................................. 77 
`2. 
`Claim 5[b] ................................................................................. 78 
`3. 
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 79 
`4. 
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 79 
`5. 
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 79 
`6. 
`Claim 16 Preamble .................................................................... 80 
`7. 
`Claim 16[a] ............................................................................... 80 
`8. 
`Claim 16[b] ............................................................................... 80 
`9. 
`Claim 16[c] ............................................................................... 81 
`10.  Claim 16[d] ............................................................................... 81 
`11.  Claim 16[e] ............................................................................... 82 
`12.  Claim 16[f] ................................................................................ 82 
`13.  Claim 16[g] ............................................................................... 83 
`14.  Claim 16[h] ............................................................................... 83 
`15.  Claim 16[i] ................................................................................ 85 
`GROUND 9: Chen ‘376 in view of Lan renders claim 11 obvious
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103. ........................................................................ 85 
`1. 
`Claim 11[a] ............................................................................... 85 
`viii
`
`I. 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent 9,958,107
`
`J. 
`
`Claim 11[b] ............................................................................... 87 
`2. 
`Claim 11[c] ............................................................................... 88 
`3. 
`GROUND 10: Chen ‘376 and Dai in further view of Stager renders
`claims 8 and 14 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. ................................ 88 
`1. 
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 88 
`2. 
`Claim 14 .................................................................................... 90 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 90 
`
` 
`
`X. 
`
` 
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,958,107
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Amazon. com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble. com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351
`(Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................... 23
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 7
`Chore-Time Equip., Inc. v. Cumberland Corp.,
`713 F.2d 774 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .............................................................................. 8
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc.,
`909 F.2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1990) .................................................................... 26, 60
`Ex parte Masham,
`2 USPQ2d 1647, 7987 Pat. App. LEXIS 23, at *3 (Bd. Pat. App. &
`Inter. 1987) .......................................................................................................... 60
`Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 8
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ......................................................................................... 6, 60, 66
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ........................................................................................................ 24
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 ................................................................................................ 1
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 2
`x
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent 9,958,107
`
` 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 22
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. .......................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ............................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ............................................................................................ 7
`
`
` 
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,958,107
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,958,107 (“the ‘107 patent”)
`Ex. 1002
`Prosecution History for U.S. Patent Application No. 15/803,410
`(“the ‘410 application”), which matured into U.S. Patent No.
`9,958,107
`Prosecution History for U.S. Patent Application No. 15/679,934
`(“the ‘934 application”)
`Prosecution History for U.S. Patent Application No. 15/615,900
`(“the ‘900 application”)
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/376,237 (“the ‘237
`provisional”)
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent No. 8,560,031 (“the ‘031 patent”)
`Ex. 1007 Declaration of Dr. Glenn E. Vallee, Ph.D., P.E.
`Ex. 1008
`International Application Publication WO 2013/138500 to Barnett
`(“Barnett PCT”)
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Provisional Patent Application 61/375,096 to Karmatz
`(“Karmatz Provisional”)
`Ex. 1010 U.S. Patent No. 8,844,098 issued to Karmatz (“Karmatz Patent”)
`Ex. 1011 Chinese Utility Model Patent No. CN 201699919 to Dai (“Dai”) and
`its certified English translation
`Ex. 1012 U.S. Patent No. 4,111,407 issued to Stager (“Stager”)
`Ex. 1013 Chinese Utility Model Patent No. CN 201491236 to Chen (“Chen
`‘236”) and its certified English translation
`Ex. 1014 Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 101742376 to Chen (“Chen
`‘376”) and its certified English translation
`
` 
`
`xii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent 9,958,107
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1015 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0216933 to Lan
`(“Lan”)
`Plaintiff PopSockets LLC’s Opening Claim Construction Brief,
`PopSockets LLC v. Quest USA Corp., Case No. 1:18-cv-02584
`(E.D.N.Y.)
`Ex. 1017 Defendant Quest USA Corp.’s and Isaac Srour’s Responsive Claim
`Construction Brief, PopSockets LLC v. Quest USA Corp., Case No.
`1:18-cv-02584 (E.D.N.Y.)
`PopSockets’ Reply to Defendants’ Responsive Claim Construction
`Brief, PopSockets LLC v. Quest USA Corp., Case No. 1:18-cv-
`02584 (E.D.N.Y.)
`Ex. 1019 Defendants Quest USA Corp.’s and Isaac Srour’s Claim
`Construction Sur-reply, PopSockets LLC v. Quest USA Corp., Case
`No. 1:18-cv-02584 (E.D.N.Y.)
`Skythane S190A material data sheet (available online at
`http://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=6ad588cc7
`d8d4663adca3040c966f9b6&ckck=1)
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`xiii
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,958,107
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Quest USA Corp. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims
`
`1–16 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,958,107 (“the ‘107 patent”) (Ex.
`
`1001) in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`According to USPTO records, the ‘107 patent is assigned to PopSockets LLC
`
`(“Patent Owner”).
`
`The claims of the ‘107 patent are directed to an expandable socket that can be
`
`attached to a portable media player. The application for the ‘107 patent was allowed
`
`by the Examiner in a first office action after an applicant-initiated interview.
`
`It is evident that the ‘107 patent was improvidently granted. The detailed
`
`analysis in Section IX, infra, demonstrates claims 1–16 are unpatentable over the
`
`prior art. Petitioner therefore has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect
`
`to the same.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies Quest USA Corp. and
`
`Isaac Srour are the real parties-in-interest.
`
` 
`
`1
`
`

`

` 
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent 9,958,107
`
`The ‘107 patent is at issue in a co-pending litigation captioned as PopSockets
`
`LLC v. Quest USA Corp., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-02584 (E.D.N.Y.), the complaint
`
`in which was filed on May 1, 2018, and subsequently served on Quest and Isaac
`
`Srour on May 7, 2018.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), Petitioner provides the following
`
`designation of counsel:
`
`Lead counsel – Steven M. Auvil (Reg. No. 40,492).
`
`Backup counsel – Bryan J. Jaketic (Reg. No. 56,280).
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), papers concerning this matter should be
`
`served in accordance with the following:
`
`Address:
`
`Steven Auvil or Bryan Jaketic,
`Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP,
`127 Public Square,
`4900 Key Tower,
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`
`bryan.jaketic@squirepb.com,
`steven.auvil@squirepb.com, and
`sfripdocket@squirepb.com
`
`Telephone: (216) 479-8500
`
`Email:
`
`Fax:
`
`(216) 479-8780
`
` 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent 9,958,107
`
` 
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic filing.
`
`III. POWER OF ATTORNEY
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this
`
`petition. The above-identified Lead and Back-up Counsel are registered
`
`practitioners.
`
`IV. PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`The undersigned authorizes the USPTO to charge any fees due during this
`
`proceeding to Deposit Account No. 07-1850.
`
`V. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies the ‘107 patent is
`
`available for IPR and Petitioner and the real parties-in-interest are not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds identified herein. The ‘107 patent has
`
`not been subject to a completed estoppel based proceeding of the AIA, and the
`
`complaint referenced above in Section II was served within the last 12 months. None
`
`of the Petitioner, the Petitioner’s real parties-in-interest, or the Petitioner’s privies,
`
`have been served with any other complaint alleging infringement of the ‘107 patent.
`
` 
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent 9,958,107
` 
`VI. PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED
`
`A.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2), inter partes review of the ‘107 patent is
`
`requested in view of the following references, each of which is prior art to the ‘107
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and does not fall under any of the exceptions of
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as set forth below:
`
`(1) International Application Publication WO 2013/138500 to Barnett
`
`(“Barnett PCT,” attached as Ex. 1008) published on September 19, 2013. The
`
`Barnett PCT was published more than one year before the earliest priority date of
`
`the ‘107 patent.
`
`(2) U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/375,096 to Karmatz (“Karmatz
`
`Provisional,” attached as Ex. 1009) published on February 23, 2012. The Karmatz
`
`Provisional was published more than one year before the earliest priority date of the
`
`‘107 patent.
`
`(3) U.S. Patent No. 8,560,031 to Barnett et al. (“the ‘031 patent,” attached as
`
`Ex. 1006) issued on October 15, 2013. The ‘031 patent issued more than one year
`
`before the earliest priority date of the ‘107 patent.
`
` 
`
`4
`
`

`

`(4) Chinese Utility Model Patent No. CN 201699919 to Dai (“Dai,” attached
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent 9,958,107
`
` 
`
`as Ex 1011)1 published on January 5, 2011. Dai was published more than one year
`
`before the earliest priority date of the ‘107 patent.
`
`(5) U.S. Patent No. 4,111,407 issued to Stager (“Stager,” attached as Ex.
`
`1012) on September 5, 1978. Stager issued more than one year before the earliest
`
`priority date of the ‘107 patent.
`
`(6) Chinese Utility Model Patent No. CN 201491236 to Chen (“Chen ‘236,”
`
`attached as Ex 1013)2 published on May 26, 2010. Chen ‘236 was published more
`
`than one year before the earliest priority date of the ‘107 patent.
`
`(7) Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 101742376 to Chen (“Chen ‘376,”
`
`attached as Ex 1014)3 published on June 16, 2010. Chen ‘376 was published more
`
`than one year before the earliest priority date of the ‘107 patent.
`
`(8) U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0216933 to Lan (“Lan,”
`
`attached as Ex. 1015) published on September 8, 2011. Lan was published more
`
`than one year before the earliest priority date of the ‘107 patent.
`
`The grounds of unpatentability presented in this petition are as follows:
`
`                                                            
`1 Dai is submitted with a certified English translation.
`
`2 Chen ‘236 is submitted with a certified English translation.
`
`3 Chen ‘376 is submitted with a certified English translation.
`
` 
`
`5
`
`

`

`i.
`
`Claims 1, 5, 7–12, 14, and 15 are rendered obvious by the Barnett PCT
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent 9,958,107
`
` 
`
`in view of the Karmatz Provisional under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`ii.
`
`Claims 6, 13, and 16 are rendered obvious by the Barnett PCT and the
`
`Karmatz Provisional in view of the ‘031 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`iii. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9–12, and 15 are rendered obvious by the Barnett PCT
`
`in view of Dai under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`iv. Claims 6, 13, and 16 are rendered obvious by the Barnett PCT and Dai
`
`in view of the ‘031 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`v.
`
`Claims 8 and 14 are rendered obvious by the Barnett PCT and Dai in
`
`further view of Stager under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`vi. Claims 1–4 are anticipated by Chen ‘236 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`vii. Claims 1–4, 9, 10, 13, and 15 are anticipated by Chen ‘376 under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`viii. Claims 5–7, 12, and 16 are rendered obvious by Chen ‘376 in view of
`
`Dai under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`ix. Claim 11 is rendered obvious by Chen ‘376 in view of Lan under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103.
`
`x.
`
`Claims 8 and 14 are rendered obvious by Chen ‘376 and Dai in further
`
`view of Stager under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
` 
`
`6
`
`

`

`For each proposed ground, Petitioner does not rely on prior art references
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent 9,958,107
`
` 
`
`other than those listed above. Other references discussed herein are provided merely
`
`to show the state of the art at the time of the alleged invention. See, e.g., Ariosa
`
`Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding
`
`that the Board erred in refusing to consider “evidence of the background
`
`understanding of skilled artisans.”).
`
`B. How the Construed Claims are Unpatentable Under the Statutory
`Grounds Identified in 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) and Supporting
`Evidence Relied Upon to Support the Challenge
`
`