UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GM Global Technology Operations LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`U.S. Design Patent No. D797,625
`
`Filed: August 24, 2016
`
`Issued: September 19, 2017
`
`Title: Vehicle Front Fender
`
`__________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. DESIGN PATENT NO. D797,625
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 5
`
`III.
`
`FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................................. 7
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................ 7
`
`A. Grounds for Standing – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ..................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Identification of Challenged Claim for Which Inter Partes Review is
`Requested and Specific Statutory Grounds on which the Challenge is
`Based – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ......... 7
`
`Overview of the ’625 Patent and Claim Construction Thereof –
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ....................................................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The ’625 Patent ........................................................................... 8
`
`Claim Construction of the ’625 Patent .....................................10
`
`D. How the Challenged Claim is Unpatentable – 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(4) ......................................................................................18
`
`E.
`
`Evidence Relied Upon to Support the Challenge and the Relevance of
`the Evidence to the Challenge Raised – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) .....18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Design Patent No. D773,340 Lian et al. ...........................21
`
`Depictions of the 2010 Hyundai Tucson ..................................22
`
`V. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................ 24
`
`A. Anticipation Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ...................................................24
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Designs Found Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ...........................25
`
`Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................27
`
`D. Designs Found Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................33
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Designer of Ordinary Skill ..................................................................38
`
`Ordinary Observer ...............................................................................40
`
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY ..................................................................................41
`
`A. Ground 1: The ’625 Patent is Unpatentable as Anticipated by Lian. .41
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: The ’625 Patent is Unpatentable as Obvious Over Lian. ..58
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`C.
`
`Ground 3: The ’625 Patent is Unpatentable as Obvious Over Lian in
`Further View of the 2010 Hyundai Tucson.........................................66
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`3Form, Inc. v. Lumicor, Inc.,
`678 Fed. App’x. 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................30
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
` 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...........................................................................28
`
`Ashley Furniture Indus. Inc. v. Lifestyle Enter. Inc.,
`574 F. Supp. 2d 920 (W.D. Wis. 2008) ................................................................41
`
`C & D Zodiac, Inc. v. b/e Aerospace, Inc.,
` PGR2017-00019, Paper No. 37, 2018 WL 5298631 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2018) ..39
`
`Campbell’s Soup Company v. Gamon Plus, Inc.,
`939 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................28
`
`Contessa Food Prods., Inc. v. Conagra, Inc.,
` 282 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...........................................................................11
`
`Dobson v. Dornan,
` 118 U.S. 10 (1886) ...............................................................................................12
`
`Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co.,
` 101 F.3d 100 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ..................................................................... passim
`
`Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.,
` 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................ 11, 12, 25
`
`Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc.,
` 796 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 11, 25, 41
`
`Field v. Google, Inc.,
`412 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Nev. 2006) ...................................................................20
`
`Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hercules Tire & Rubber Co., Inc.,
` 162 F.3d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...........................................................................40
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Gorham Co. v. White,
` 81 U.S. 511 (1871) .................................................................................. 25, 26, 27
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966)) ................................................................................................28
`
`High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.,
` 730 F.3d 1301 (Fed.Cir.2013) .......................................................... 12, 30, 65, 75
`
`Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2019) ...........................................20
`
`In re Borden,
` 90 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................ 28, 29, 66
`
`In re Carter,
` 673 F.2d 1378 (C.C.P.A. 1982) ...........................................................................31
`
`In re Chung,
` No. 00–1148, 2000 WL 1476861 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 4, 2000) ..................................31
`
`In re Lamb,
` 286 F.2d 610 (C.C.P.A. 1961) ...................................................................... 31, 59
`
`In re Nalbandian,
` 661 F.2d 1214 (C.C.P.A. 1981) .............................................................. 29, 31, 33
`
`In re Rosen,
` 673 F.2d 388 (C.C.P.A. 1982) ...................................................................... 28, 58
`
`Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp.,
` 589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................... passim
`
`Jore Corp. v. Kouvato, Inc.,
`117 Fed. App’x 761 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................................................29
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex,
` 550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................................32
`
`Marten Transport, Ltd. v. Platform Advertising, Inc.,
` No. 14-2464-JWL, 2016 WL 1718862 (D. Kan. Apr. 29, 2016) ........................23
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP,
` 747 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................... passim
`
`Pac. Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC,
`Case No. 6:12-CV-33-ORL-28DAB, 2013 WL 12156465 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 4,
`2013) .....................................................................................................................41
`
`Peters v. Active Mfg. Co.,
` 129 U.S. 530 (1889) .............................................................................................25
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
` 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...........................................................................11
`
`Schwinn Bicycle Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Co.,
`444 F.2d 295 (9th Cir. 1970) ................................................................................33
`
`Sensio, Inc. v. Select Brands, Inc.,
` No. IPR2013-00500, Paper No. 8, 2014 WL 2507791 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2014)
` ...............................................................................................................................25
`
`Sport Dimension, Inc. v. Coleman Co., Inc.,
` 820 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...........................................................................12
`
`Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc.,
` 566 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...........................................................................32
`
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Sols., Inc.,
` 698 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...........................................................................24
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 (2018) ........................................................................................7, 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (2018) ...................................................................................24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 (2018) ........................................................................................8, 28
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(a) ....................................................................................................24
`
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
` Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) .................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 807 .....................................................................................................22
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.152 .....................................................................................................11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..............................................................................................11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. D797,625 (“the ’625 Patent”).
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. D797,625.
`
`Declaration of James M. Gandy, dated February 7, 2020.
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill, dated February 7, 2020.
`
`2018 Chevrolet Equinox Brochure, http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Chevrolet/Equinox/Chevrolet_US%20Equino
`x_2018.pdf.
`
`U.S. Design Patent No. D773,340 “Lian.”
`
`2010 Hyundai Tucson Brochure, http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Hyundai/Tucson/Hyundai_US%20Tucson_20
`10.pdf, archived on April 2, 2014 by Internet Archive organization’s
`“Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140402003154/http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Hyundai/Tucson/Hyundai_US%20Tucson_20
`10.pdf.
`
`Exemplary images of the 2010 Hyundai Tucson Brochure,
`http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Hyundai/Tucson/Hyundai_US%20Tucson_20
`10.pdf, archived on April 2, 2014 by Internet Archive organization’s
`“Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140402003154/http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Hyundai/Tucson/Hyundai_US%20Tucson_20
`10.pdf.
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. D773,340 “Lian”
`
`File History of U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 29/516,319 (“the’319
`Application”)
`
`
`vii
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1004
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`No.
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`
`Description
`
`Source code of Auto-brochures.com, http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/, archived on March 13, 2014 by Internet Archive
`organization’s “Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140313222453/http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/.
`
`Source code of Auto-brochures.com, http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/, archived on May 17, 2014 by Internet Archive
`organization’s “Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140517005107/http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/.
`
`Declaration of Margaret Herrmann, dated February 6, 2020.
`
`Curriculum Vitae of James M. Gandy.
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Jason C. Hill.
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. (together “LKQ”
`
`or “Petitioner”) respectfully request inter partes review of the claim of U.S. Patent
`
`No. D797,625 (“the ’625 Patent”) assigned to and owned by GM Global Technology
`
`Operations LLC (“GM” or “Patent Owner”). The ’625 Patent, attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 1001, was filed on August 24, 2016, and issued on September 19, 2017.
`
`Because the filing date of the ’625 Patent is after March 16, 2013, the “first inventor
`
`to file” rules govern this proceeding and conditions for patentability. See Leahy-
`
`Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). This Petition
`
`shows that the ’625 Patent is unpatentable—based on prior art that renders
`
`anticipated or obvious the single claim of the ’625 Patent—and exceeds the
`
`“reasonable likelihood” and “preponderance of the evidence” standards required by
`
`the Petitioner to institute and prevail on this Petition.
`
`The ’625 Patent claims “[t]he ornamental design for a vehicle front fender, as
`
`shown and described.” Ex. 1001, at 1. The ’625 Patent covers a single claim and
`
`four figures. Figures 1 and 2 of the ’625 Patent are representative of the design:
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Id., FIG. 1–2.
`
`
`
`However, this design was anticipated by or at least obvious over the prior art.
`
`The claimed features of the ’625 Patent are apparent in exemplary depictions of the
`
`anticipating U.S. Design Patent No. D773,340 to Lian et al. (“Lian”) and the
`
`Hyundai Tucson:
`
`2
`
`

`

`LIAN
`LIAN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Ex. 1006, FIGS. 1, 4, 6.
`
`2010 HYUNDAI TUCSON
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1007, at 12 (cropped).
`
`For the reasons set forth herein, the ’625 Patent is unpatentable as anticipated
`
`and/or obvious over the prior art.
`
`4
`
`

`

`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`In accordance with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, LKQ states as
`
`follows:
`
`Real Parties-In-Interest. LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive
`
`Industries, Inc., are real parties-in-interest. LKQ Corporation is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its corporate
`
`office located at 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois 60661.
`
`Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under
`
`the laws of the State of California with its corporate office located at 500 W.
`
`Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois 60661. Keystone Automotive
`
`Industries, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of LKQ Corporation.
`
`Related Proceedings. In addition to this Petition, LKQ has filed or is filing
`
`petitions for Inter Partes Review or Post Grant Review for the following United
`
`States Design Patents also assigned to and owned by GM:
`
`Patent Number
`
`Case Number
`
`Filing Date
`
`D797,624
`
`
`
`
`
`D811,964
`
`IPR2020-00062
`
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`
`D813,120
`
`IPR2020-00065
`
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`
`D813,755
`
`
`
`
`
`D823,741
`
`IPR2020-00064
`
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent Number
`
`Case Number
`
`Filing Date
`
`D828,255
`
`IPR2020-00063
`
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`
`D840,306
`
`PGR2020-00004
`
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`
`D841,532
`
`PGR2020-00005
`
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`
`D847,043
`
`PGR2020-00002
`
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`
`D847,703
`
`D850,341
`
`D852,099
`
`D853,903
`
`D859,246
`
`D859,253
`
`PGR2020-00003
`
`
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Designation of Petitioner’s Counsel. Petitioner submits a Power of Attorney
`
`with this Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b). Petitioner identifies the following lead and
`
`backup counsel to represent it in this matter:
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`Barry F. Irwin, P.C.
`Irwin IP LLC
`222 S. Riverside Plaza
`Suite 2350
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Phone: 312.667.6081
`birwin@irwinip.com
`Reg. No. (Reg. No. 36,557)
`
`
`Reid Huefner
`Irwin IP LLC
`222 S. Riverside Plaza
`Suite 2350
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Phone: 312.667.6083
`rhuefner@irwinip.com
`Reg. No. (Reg. No. 57,341)
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Service Information. Petitioner consents to electronic service in this
`
`proceeding via (1) filing documents in the Patent Review Processing System
`
`(“PRPS”) or (2) emailing the documents to the above-designated counsel (when not
`
`filed in PRPS).
`
`Proof of Service. Proof of service of this Petition on the patent owner at the
`
`correspondence address of record for the ’625 Patent is attached.
`
`III. FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`The fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15 is included with this Petition. The
`
`Director is authorized to charge any additional required fees to Deposit Account No.
`
`603199.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`A. Grounds for Standing – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’625 Patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claim on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenged Claim for Which Inter Partes Review
`is Requested and Specific Statutory Grounds on which the
`Challenge is Based – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(2)
`
`Petitioner requests that the single claim of the ’625 Patent be found
`
`unpatentable on the basis that its claim is anticipated or obvious in light of prior art.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 (2018) (“A person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . . (1) the
`
`7
`
`

`

`claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use,
`
`on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the
`
`claimed invention; or (2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued
`
`under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published
`
`under section 122(b).”); 35 U.S.C. § 103 (2018) (“A patent for a claimed invention
`
`may not be obtained . . . if the differences between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious
`
`before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.”).
`
`C. Overview of the ’625 Patent and Claim Construction Thereof –
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`
`1.
`
`The ’625 Patent
`
`The application that ultimately issued as the ’625 Patent, entitled “Vehicle
`
`Front Fender,” was filed on August 24, 2016 and assigned Application No.
`
`29/575,313 (the “’313 Application”). See Ex. 1002, at 17. The ’313 Application
`
`contained a single claim for “[t]he ornamental design for a vehicle front fender, as
`
`shown and described.” Id. at 20. The ’313 Application contained four figures. Id.
`
`at 21–22. The ’625 Patent issued on March 6, 2018 without any amendments. Ex.
`
`1001, at 1; Ex. 1002, at 72.
`
`The ’625 Patent contains the following figures and descriptions:
`
`8
`
`

`

`’625 PATENT FIGURES AND DESCRIPTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`“FIG. 1 is a perspective view of the
`vehicle front fender.” Id. at 1.
`
`“FIG. 2 is a side view thereof.”
`Id. at 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`“FIG. 3 is a front view thereof.”
`Id. at 1.
`
`“FIG. 4 is a top view thereof.”
`Id. at 1.
`
`The description further provides that, “[i]n the drawings, the portions shown by
`
`broken lines form no part of the claimed design.” Id.
`
`9
`
`

`

`The following photographs published online by Chevrolet on its website show
`
`the embodiment of the claimed design as it is used in commerce on the 2018
`
`Chevrolet Equinox sport utility vehicle.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, at 3, 20; Ex. 1003, Declaration of James M. Gandy (“Gandy Dec.”) at
`
`¶ 34; Ex. 1004, Declaration of Jason C. Hill (“Hill Dec.”) at ¶ 32.
`
`2.
`
`Claim Construction of the ’625 Patent
`
`In an inter partes review (“IPR”), “a claim of a patent . . . shall be construed
`
`using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim
`
`10
`
`

`

`in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in
`
`accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the
`
`patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).1 LKQ therefore employs that standard herein.
`
`The scope of a design patent is defined by the solid lines (not the broken or
`
`dashed lines) depicted in the claimed drawings in conjunction with their
`
`descriptions. See, e.g., Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 680
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 1.152); see also, Contessa Food
`
`Prods., Inc. v. Conagra, Inc., 282 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Although
`
`design patents protect ornamentation over function, “[i]f the overall appearance of a
`
`claimed design is not primarily functional, the design claim is not invalid, even if
`
`certain elements have functional purposes.” Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien,
`
`Inc., 796 F.3d 1312, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[C]laim was limited to the ornamental
`
`
`1 Effective November 13, 2018, the so-called broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`(“BRI”) standard is no longer appropriate; thus, all IPR proceedings must conduct
`
`their claim constructions using the Phillips standard put forth by the Federal Circuit
`
`in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-
`
`board/procedures/ptab-issues-claim-construction.
`
`11
`
`

`

`aspects of these functional elements.”). LKQ notes that it is well-settled that a design
`
`is represented better by an illustration than a description. Egyptian Goddess, 543
`
`F.3d at 679 (citing Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10, 14 (1886)); see also, Sport
`
`Dimension, Inc. v. The Coleman Co., 820 F.3d 1316, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing
`
`cases). However, it may be “helpful to point out . . . various features of the claimed
`
`design as they relate to the . . . prior art,” and thus LKQ does so herein. Egyptian
`
`Goddess, 543 F.3d at 680. Cf. High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc., 730
`
`F.3d 1301, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (remanding to district court, in part, for a
`
`“verbal description of the claimed design to evoke a visual image consonant with
`
`that design”).
`
`The specification of the ’625 Patent claims “[t]he ornamental design for a
`
`vehicle front fender, as shown and described.” See Ex. 1001 at 1. The specification
`
`disclaims any broken lines in the figures, stating “the portions shown by broken lines
`
`form no part of the claimed design.” Id. at 1. Setting aside the broken lines, which
`
`are not claimed, the design is for a vehicle fender comprising a top protrusion having
`
`a u-shaped notch and a main portion of the fender having three creases and one
`
`inflection line approaching the second crease. The ’625 Patent does not specifically
`
`claim the mirror image in the patent. Id.
`
`As a result, the claimed design should be construed to be only the portions of
`
`the vehicle front fender shown in solid lines and can be described as:
`
`12
`
`

`

`A vehicle fender comprising:
`
`a top protrusion extending rearwardly and upwardly from an upper portion
`
`of the fender and having an intermittent u-shaped notch;
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 2 (annotated);
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`a first crease and a second crease extending forwards from a rear edge of the
`
`fender, a concavity line disposed between the first crease and the second crease, and
`
`an inflection line below the second crease; and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIGS. 1–2 (annotated);
`
`14
`
`

`

`an angular front elevation profile.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 3; Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec. at ¶ 35; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec. at ¶ 46. The
`
`claimed design is disclosed through several figures that show the design from
`
`different perspectives; a design is best represented by images rather than words, and
`
`although a verbal construction is required, it is impractical to attempt to verbally
`
`characterize every element of the claimed design. The above claim construction
`
`identifies all features of the claimed design that materially contribute to the overall
`
`visual impression it creates; however, the below analyses compare the asserted prior
`
`15
`
`

`

`art with the claimed design in its entirety as depicted in each of the disclosed figures.
`
`Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec., ¶ 36; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec., ¶ 47.
`
`The concavity line is depicted on the claimed design using a discontinuous
`
`line segment that neither contacts the rear edge of the fender, nor the second crease.
`
`Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec. at ¶ 37; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec. at ¶ 48. A designer of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“DOSA”) would have understood from this depiction that the
`
`concavity line is not a crease or other clearly demarcated feature in and of itself, but
`
`rather a depiction of the line of inflection between the surface extending downwards
`
`beneath the first crease and the surface approaching the second crease, and thus is
`
`formed as a result of the interplay between those two creases and the confluence of
`
`their respective sloping planes. Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec. at ¶ 37; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec.
`
`at ¶ 48.
`
`As to the third line depicted on the claimed design, identified above as the
`
`“Inflection Line,” the virtually identical contour lines converging upon the third line
`
`from both above and below the third line do not appear to denote any particular
`
`difference or discontinuity in curvature at or around that line. Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec.
`
`at ¶ 38; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec. at ¶ 49. Likewise, this inflection line has no perceptible
`
`effect on the curvature of the rear edge of the fender. Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec. at ¶ 38;
`
`Ex. 1004, Hill Dec. at ¶ 49. This is evident from the below-reproduced figures:
`
`16
`
`

`

`’625 PATENT
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG.1 (detail)
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 2 (detail)
`
`Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec. at ¶ 38; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec. at ¶ 49 (citing Ex. 1001, FIG. 1
`
`(cropped and enlarged)).
`
`A DOSA would have expected a crease extending to the rear of the fender
`
`panel (or any other feature perceptibly affecting the contour or curvature of the
`
`fender and abutting an edge of the fender) to have some effect on the contour of
`
`fender’s rear edge, as is evident in the ’625 Patent around both the first crease and
`
`the second crease. Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec. at ¶ 38; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec. at ¶ 50. A
`
`17
`
`

`

`designer of ordinary skill in the art, considering the disclosure set forth in the ’625
`
`Patent, could only reasonably have understood this third line to denote the inflection
`
`point, that is, a local maximum of the convex surface of the fender panel in its
`
`transition from sloping away from the vehicle through the vertical plane to slope
`
`towards the vehicle. Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec. at ¶ 38; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec. at ¶ 50.
`
`D. How the Challenged Claim is Unpatentable – 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(4)
`
`This Petition sets forth three alternative and non-redundant grounds for
`
`unpatentability of the ’625 Patent.
`
`• First, the single claim of the ’625 Patent is unpatentable as anticipated
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by U.S. Design Patent No. D773,340 to Lian et
`
`al. (“Lian”) (Ex. 1006);
`
`• Second, the single claim of the ’625 Patent is unpatentable as obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lian (Ex. 1006);
`
`• Third, the single claim of the ’625 Patent is unpatentable as obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lian (Ex. 1006) in further view of a
`
`publication depicting the 2010 Hyundai Tucson (Ex. 1007).
`
`E.
`
`Evidence Relied Upon to Support the Challenge and the
`Relevance of the Evidence to the Challenge Raised – 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(5)
`
`The following prior art references render the claim of the ’625 Patent
`
`anticipated:
`
`18
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Filing Date
`
`Publication
`Date
`
`1006
`
`U.S. Design Patent No.
`D773,340 (“Lian”)
`
`03/17/2016
`
`12/06/2016
`
`Eff. 07/30/2014
`
`The following prior art references render the claim of the ’625 Patent obvious:
`
`Exhibit
`
`Primary/
`Secondary
`
`Description
`
`Filing Date Publication
`Date
`
`1006
`
`Primary
`
`U.S. Design Patent No.
`D773,340 (“Lian”)
`
`03/17/2016
`
`01/21/2015
`
`Eff.
`07/30/2014
`
`1007–
`08
`
`Secondary
`
`2010 Hyundai Tucson
`
`N/A
`
`04/02/2014
`
`Exhibits 1008–10 are submitted to support the public accessibility and
`
`authenticity of the printed publication exhibit forming the basis of one of the
`
`invalidity grounds. In addition, for each of the above prior art references, further
`
`evidence is submitted and set forth below establishing its public accessibility and
`
`authenticity. This includes, inter alia, archived copies of the “robots.txt” files
`
`corresponding to each of the websites relied upon as prior art that demonstrate that
`
`each such website was indexable by search engines and thus publicly accessible at
`
`19
`
`

`

`the time the relied-upon prior art webpages were archived. See Exs. 1009–10; Ex.
`
`1013, Declaration of Margaret Herrmann (“Herrmann Dec.”) at ¶¶ 8–10; Field v.
`
`Google, Inc., 412 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1110–13, 1120 (D. Nev. 2006) (explaining the
`
`functionality and use of “robots.txt” files, and finding that inclusion of a “robots.txt”
`
`file enabling search engine indexing demonstrated that the website owner sought to
`
`make the contents of the website available “to the widest possible audience”). In its
`
`totality, this Petition provides compelling evidence of public accessibility that the
`
`Patent Owner cannot reasonably refute, or at the very least provides evidence
`
`“sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that [its asserted references were]
`
`publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, LLC
`
`v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29, at *13, *18 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Dec. 20, 2019) (setting forth the standard required of printed publications for
`
`institution of an IPR).
`
`20
`
`

`

`1.
`
`U.S. Design Patent No. D773,340 Lian et al.
`
`This Petition relies upon U.S. Design Patent No. D773,340 to Lian et al.
`
`(“Lian”)2 and its file history as an anticipating prior art reference, or, in the
`
`alternative, as a primary reference for establishing that the claimed design was
`
`obvious. Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec. at ¶ 49; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec. at ¶ 54; Ex. 1006. The
`
`patent, titled “Vehicle,” names Yubo Lian, Jihan Fan, Bo Bi, and Yue Li as
`
`inventors, and BYD Company Ltd. as its assignee. Ex. 1006, at 1. Lian was filed
`
`with the U.S. Patent Office on March 17, 2016, is a divisional of and claims priority
`
`to U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 29/516,319 (“the ’319 Application”), which was filed on
`
`January 30, 2015. Id.; Ex. 1009, at 6, 15–18; Ex. 1010, at 2, 7–14 (originally
`
`submitted drawings); Ex. 1013, (“Herrmann Dec.”) at ¶¶ 6, 9–10. Lian further
`
`claims priority to a foreign patent application, No. 2014 3 026395, filed with the
`
`Chinese Patent Office on July 30, 2014. Ex. 1006, at 1; Ex. 1009, at 6; Ex. 1010, at
`
`18, 33–41 (certified foreign patent application submitted in support of the ’319
`
`Application); Ex. 1013, Herrmann Dec. at ¶¶ 6, 9–10. Thus, Lian qualifies as prior
`
`
`2 The information appearing on the face of the patent identified in Ex. 1006 attached
`
`as an exhibit hereto falls within the “Public Records: exception to the rule against
`
`hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 803(8).
`
`21
`
`

`

`art under both 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). See Ex. 1006;
`
`Ex. 1013, Herrmann Dec. at ¶ 6.
`
`2.
`
`Depictions of the 2010 Hyundai Tucson
`
`As a secondary reference for establishing obviousness of the claimed design,
`
`Petitioner relies upon depictions of the 2010 Hyundai Tucson that were published
`
`together in a single promotional brochure, included as Exhibit 1007. 3 This brochure
`
`
`3 Each of the depictions of motor vehicles in Exhibit 1008 are screenshots or
`
`electronic copies of publicly available documents or websites as they existed as of
`
`the date indicated in the respective exhibits, and as noted herein. Each of the
`
`publications have been retrieved from the Internet Archive organization’s “Wayback
`
`Machine,” an internet archive that collects and indexes copies of historical
`
`webpages. See Ex. 1013, Herrmann Dec. at ¶ 8. The brochure of Exhibit 1007 was
`
`downloaded directly from the “Wayback Machine” as indicated herein and in the
`
`exemplary Exhibit 1008. Ex. 1008; Ex. 1013, Herrmann Dec. at ¶¶ 7–8. An
`
`affidavit has been requested from the Internet Archive with respect to the brochure.
`
`None of the facts embodied in said exhibits are inadmissible hearsay. Even without
`
`an affidavit from the Internet Archive regarding the authenticity of its Wayback
`
`Machine results, each of these identified exhibits would likewise be admissible
`
`evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 807, the residual exception to the hearsay rule. LKQ
`
`22
`
`

`

`bears a 2009 copyright notice to Hyundai