Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 28
` Entered: August 4, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LKQ CORPORATION and
`KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`____________
`
`Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining No Challenged Claim Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 28
` Entered: August 4, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LKQ CORPORATION and
`KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`____________
`
`Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining No Challenged Claim Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc.,
`(collectively “LKQ”) filed a Petition to institute an inter partes review of the
`claim for a “Vehicle Front Fender” in U.S. Patent No. D797,625 S (Ex.
`1001, “the ’625 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). GM Global Technology
`Operations, Inc., (“GM”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim.
`Resp.”). On August 11, 2020, we entered a Decision instituting an inter
`partes review of the challenged claim in this proceeding. Paper 10 (“Inst.
`Dec.”).
`Following our Institution Decision, GM timely filed a Response.
`Paper 17 (“PO Resp.”). LKQ filed a Reply. Paper 21 (“Pet. Reply”). GM
`subsequently filed a Sur-Reply. Paper 23 (“PO Sur-Reply”). We heard oral
`argument on April 27, 2021. A transcript of the argument has been entered
`into the record. Paper 27 (“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). Having reviewed the
`arguments of the parties and the supporting evidence, we find that Petitioner
`has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the sole claim
`of the ’625 patent is unpatentable.
`B. Additional Proceedings
`The parties identify various other inter partes and post-grant review
`proceedings that Petitioner has filed challenging different patents owned by
`GM. The parties do not state that these other proceedings affect, or would
`be affected by, the outcome of this proceeding. Pet. 5–6; Paper 5, 2.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`
`
`C. The ’625 Patent and Claim
`The ’625 patent (Ex. 1001) is a design patent that issued September
`19, 2017, and lists GM as the assignee. Ex. 1001, codes (45), (73). The
`title, “Vehicle Front Fender,” refers to an outer surface of a vehicle front
`fender, which the figures of the patent illustrate in solid lines, but with
`certain portions shown in dashed lines, such as the inner surface, that would
`not be observable when the fender is attached to a vehicle. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 1.152; see also MPEP 1503.02, subsection III (“Unclaimed subject matter
`may be shown in broken lines for the purpose of illustrating the environment
`in which the article embodying the design is used. Unclaimed subject matter
`must be described as forming no part of the claimed design or of a specified
`embodiment thereof.”).
`The ’625 design includes Figures 1–4, reproduced below, illustrating
`the claimed front fender as set forth below.1
`
`
`
`1 We refer to the claim, i.e., the vehicle front fender shown in Figures 1–4,
`also as “the ’625 design.”
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001. Figures 1–4 above depict, respectively, the following views of the
`claimed vehicle front fender design: a perspective view, a side view, a front
`view, and a top view. Id. at code (57).
`D. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review based on a petition filed after November 13,
`2018, the claims are construed
`using the same claim construction standard that would be used to
`construe the claim 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); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (setting forth claim construction standard in civil
`actions).
`With respect to design patents, it is well settled that a design is
`represented better by an illustration than a description. Egyptian Goddess,
`Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 679 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) (citing
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`
`Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10, 14 (1886)). Although preferably a design
`patent claim is not construed by providing a detailed verbal description, it
`may be “helpful to point out . . . various features of the claimed design as
`they relate to the . . . prior art.” Id. at 679–80; 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”).
`1. LKQ’s Proposed Claim Construction
`LKQ relies on the Declarations of Jason M. Gandy (Ex. 1003) and
`Jason C. Hill (Ex. 1004; Ex. 1043) in support of its claim construction and
`arguments. GM relies on the Declaration of Thomas V. Peters (Ex. 2004).
`LKQ contends that the claim of the ’625 patent, as shown by the solid
`lines in the drawings, can be textually described as:
`[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;
`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
`an angular front elevation profile.
`Pet. 13–15 (emphasis omitted). LKQ provides the following annotated
`Figure 1 from the ’625 patent, emphasizing certain claim elements.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`
`
`
`In annotated Figure 1, above, LKQ illustrates a front perspective view of the
`claimed vehicle fender pointing to a “first crease,” a “concavity line,” a
`“second crease,” and an “inflection line.” Id. at 14.
`2. GM’s Proposed Claim Construction
`GM’s position is that LKQ’s construction is too general and
`simplistic. See PO Resp. 1 (GM arguing that it “is not the presence or
`absence of common features, but the details in the claimed design that stand
`out”). GM describes the claimed design as “a coordinated set of features
`that contribute to a unique overall appearance.” Id. at 3. Summarized
`below, GM asserts that there are five specific ornamental aspects of the
`design that contribute to its uniqueness. Id. at 4–11.
`(a) “[f]irst, the claimed design includes distinct lateral and
`lower perimeter shapes”
`GM argues that the right hand lateral edge, i.e., “door cut line,” and
`the circular edge of the wheel arch “complement each other—both have
`smooth, arcuate shapes that echo the smooth and consistent curvature of the
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`
`‘first’ and ‘second’ creases and other sculpting of the fender.” Id. at 4.
`Reproduced below is GM’s annotated version of Figure 2 of the ’625 design.
`
`
`GM’s annotated version of Figure 2 of the ’625 design is shown above with
`the door cut line and wheel arch highlighted in red. Id. at 5.
`(b) “[s]econd, the claimed design includes a ‘protrusion’
`having a particular three-dimensional shape”
`GM argues that the shape of the protrusion is unique, specifically
`drawing our attention to the consistent width of the upper surface of the
`protrusion, shown highlighted in green in Patent Owner’s annotated Figure 1
`reproduced below.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`
`
`
`GM’s annotated version of Figure 1 of the ’625 design is shown above with
`the upper surface of the protrusion highlighted in green. Id. at 6. Patent
`Owner argues that “[t]he upper surface (green) has a thickness and
`consistent width that mirrors the inside surface of the ‘u-shaped notch,’
`furthering the cohesive overall appearance of the fender.” Id. at 5 (citing Ex.
`2004 ¶¶ 39–40).
`(c) “[t]hird, the claimed design includes lines and surfaces
`having smooth, arcing shapes that provide a distinctive
`sculpting”
`According to GM, the claimed design has first and second creases that
`“gently curve between respective ends.” Id. at 7. GM contends that the
`“concavity line” is similarly curved and that “[t]hese lines cooperate with the
`smooth, arching lines of the fender perimeter, and the contoured surfaces
`between these lines, to provide an overall appearance of smooth, curving
`shapes.” Id. Figure 2 of the ’625 patent as annotated by Patent Owner is
`reproduced below.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`
`
`
`GM’s annotated version of Figure 2 of the ’625 design is shown above with
`the first and second creases, and concavity line, highlighted in red. Id. at 5.
`Patent Owner refers to the first crease as a “character line.” Id. at 9.
`According to GM’s declarant, Mr. Peters, “the curvature and relative
`positioning of the ‘first crease’ helps set a tone for the proportions and body
`shape of the fender.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 44.
`(d) “[f]ourth, the claimed design includes a horizontal
`crease near the lower portion of the fender that extends
`between the wheel arch and the lateral edge”
`GM argues that the horizontal crease located adjacent to the wheel
`arch “contributes to the overall sculpted appearance of the front fender, and
`adds a focal location extending to the right of the wheel arch.” PO Resp. 10.
`We note LKQ refers to this feature as an “inflection line.” Pet. 14. Patent
`Owner’s annotated Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`
`
`
`
`
`GM’s annotated version of Figure 1 of the ’625 design is shown above with
`the horizontal crease highlighted in red. PO Resp. 10.
`(e) “[f]ifth, the claimed design defines a wheel arch having
`a circular perimeter. The perimeter has a smooth,
`continuous curvature that extends between the front
`corner and rear bottom corner of the fender”
`GM contends also that the wheel arch contributes to the overall
`appearance of the claimed design because “the circular perimeter of the
`cutout echoes the smooth, arcing lines of the other perimeter edges, the
`protrusion, first and second creases, and other sculpting of the fender.” Id. at
`11. Figure 2, as annotated by GM, is reproduced below.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`
`
`
`GM’s annotated Figure 2, above, illustrates the perimeter of the wheel arch
`highlighted in red. Id.
`3. The Claim Construction Analysis
`In addition to its claim construction the specific design elements
`discussed above, GM makes several arguments to support its overarching
`contention that, “in the field of vehicle fender design, nuanced features are
`significant to overall appearance.” Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 48–56). GM
`argues that an ordinary observer would consider the overall appearance of
`the claimed design and that details are important “because (1) the art is
`crowded; (2) the fender at issue must interface with other aspects of a
`vehicle, which puts increased focus on incongruities; and (3) fender
`replacement part marketing materials tout the importance of details and parts
`being ‘identical’ in this field.” Id. We address these three arguments in
`turn.
`
`(a) Whether Vehicle Fender Design is a Crowded Art
`GM argues that vehicle fenders are in a crowded field. Id. at 13. GM
`argues that during prosecution of the application thatthat became the ’625
`patent, the Examiner cited and considered “dozens” of vehicle front fenders.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`
`Id. GM cites several cases, including In re Harvey, 12 F.3d 1061, 1064
`(Fed. Cir. 1993), where the Federal Circuit discusses crowded art. In
`Harvey, the Federal Circuit distinguished the facts from a prior case, In re
`Hopkins, explaining that the loud speaker designs at issue in Hopkins were
`in a field “much less crowded than that of ornamental vase design,” which
`was the focus of Harvey. Harvey, 12 F.3d at 1064.
`We appreciate that a recognition that the vehicle fender field is
`considered to be in a “crowded art” would be helpful for GM insofar as
`small or “nuanced” differences between the claimed design and the prior art
`will then become even more important. However, the “crowded art” concept
`is highly fact dependent. GM has presented evidence of other design patents
`for vehicle fenders. See PO Resp. 15; see also Ex. 1001, code (56) (listing
`dozens of references). GM’s declarant, Mr. Peters, points out 24 design
`patents relating to vehicle fender design and, out of those, specifically
`addresses six “vehicle fender designs that reflect common design concepts
`like those recited in Petitioner’s proposed construction for the ’625 Patent.”
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 50. Mr. Peters explains that, due to the necessity to interface
`with other vehicle components and body parts, commonalities between
`fender designs can “include arcuate wheel arches, protrusions that interface
`between the vehicle hood and A-pillar, door cut lines that interface with a
`door panel, and contoured surface sculpting that includes multiple creases.”
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 51. Also, Mr. Peters references “an article from October 2017
`estimating that over 1,700 different car models were on the road.” Id. ¶ 53
`(citing Ex. 2002, 2).
`We are not persuaded that the field is crowded based merely on the
`evidence of the number of vehicle models that include front fenders. GM
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`
`has not defined clearly the field of art that is allegedly crowded. For
`example, it is unclear whether the field of art should include all vehicles as
`recited in the title, or be limited to sedans, as opposed to trucks or sports cars
`which could arguably be significantly different in appearance. GM’s
`analysis of six other fender designs, advanced to show that the field of
`fender design is crowded, is helpful to show certain commonalities among
`related fender designs, but it is not as persuasive that fender design is
`specifically a crowded art. Moreover, to the extent In re Harvey is
`applicable here, we find that vehicle fenders are more fairly akin to loud
`speakers, as compared to vases, which have been made for thousands of
`years. See Un-Making Sense of Alleged Abkhaz-Adyghean Inscriptions on
`Ancient Greek Pottery, Alexei Kassian, Copyright: Koninklijke Brill NV,
`Leiden, 2016 (last viewed Aug. 4, 2021 at https://www.researchgate.net/
`publication/311802093_Un_Making_Sense_of_Alleged_Abkhaz
`Adyghean_Inscriptions_on_Ancient_Greek_Pottery) (explaining that “[a]
`large number of Ancient Greek vases, starting from the late 8th to the early
`4th centuries BC, bear short inscriptions”).
`We acknowledge that there are many different front fender designs,
`and we find that this fact helps illustrate both commonalities and differences
`among the designs. See, e.g., PO Resp. 13 (GM providing a collage of
`fender designs to illustrate common features). We are not persuaded, on the
`record before us, that GM has provided sufficient facts or evidence for the
`Board to determine that vehicle fender design is a relatively crowded art.
`(b) Interfacing with Other Vehicle Components and the
`Similar Appearance of Replacement Parts
`GM argues that “the ordinary observer would have been especially
`attuned to interfacing aspects of the design because they directly impact the
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`
`match/fit with other parts of the vehicle.” PO Resp. 15–16 (citing Ex. 2004
`¶ 54; Auto. Body Parts Ass’n v. Ford Glob. Techs., LLC, 930 F.3d 1314,
`1319 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). In this case, extending our claim construction
`inquiry beyond the metes and bounds of the claim to address “fit with other
`vehicle components” is not necessary. PO Resp. 15–16 (citing Ex. 2004
`¶ 54). For one thing, the claim in the ’625 patent does not include any other
`body parts or vehicle components. Ex. 1001, code (57), Figs. 1–4; see also
`OddzOn Prod., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
`(“A design patent only protects the novel, ornamental features of the
`patented design.”). However, we do find persuasive GM’s evidence that,
`when repairing a vehicle, consumer preference is to choose identical
`replacement parts, for the reason that identical parts best return the vehicle to
`its original appearance. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 2003, 10, 14; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 55–56;
`Ex. 2005, 3–4). This evidence helps support GM’s position that “[t]he
`ordinary observer’s overall impression would have been defined by a
`multitude of readily apparent features of the ’625 Patent’s design.” PO
`Resp. 17.
`
`(c) How the Claim is Construed
`We are persuaded by the parties’ arguments and the evidence in this
`case that vehicle fender designs include unique ornamentation as shown in
`the drawings of the ’625 patent. We are further persuaded that we should
`consider and describe, in more detail than the description LKQ proffers, the
`elements and ornamentation as part of the overall appearance of the claimed
`design. See Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., 597 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed.
`Cir. 2010) (The Federal Circuit questioning how “a court could effectively
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`
`construe design claims, where necessary, in a way other than by describing
`the features shown in the drawings.”).
`Therefore, in addition to the commonalities between fenders described
`by LKQ and its declarant, Mr. Hill, we find persuasive Mr. Peters’ testimony
`that “[t]he ordinary observer would have been attuned to nuanced
`differences between fender designs,” and “readily recognized differences
`that distinguish vehicle fender designs.” Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 52–53. Mr. Peters
`testifies, for example, that “[t]he sculpture of vehicle front fenders
`significantly impacts the character and visual impression of the fender in the
`eyes of the ordinary observer.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 81. Likewise, LKQ’s declarant,
`Mr. Hill, testified in his deposition that an ordinary designer would consider
`various features, including sculpting, on vehicle fenders:
`Q. Right. What about the sculpting on the face of the fender,
`would you agree with me that those are features, the sculpting
`on the side of a vehicle including on a fender, that are going
`to be meaningful to an ordinary observer?
`. . . .
`A. Yes.
`Ex. 2008, 20:6–15.
`In our Decision on Institution, we determined that no express verbal
`description was necessary. Inst. Dec. 5–6. We explained that “the best
`description of the ornamental features of the ’625 design comes from the
`drawings themselves.” Id. at 6. Now, on the full record before us, we still
`find that the best evaluation of the claimed design occurs by observing and
`considering the overall appearance of the claimed design as shown explicitly
`in Figures 1–4 of the drawings. See In re Jennings, 182 F.2d 207, 208
`(CCPA 1950) (“In considering patentability of a proposed design the
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`
`appearance of the design must be viewed as a whole, as shown by the
`drawing, or drawings.”).
`However, based on the competing analyses by the parties and
`considering the relationship of the prior art to the claimed design, we find it
`helpful to describe verbally certain elements of the claim for purposes of our
`analysis in this Final Decision. See Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 680; see
`also Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., 101 F.3d 100, 104 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
`(“A proper interpretation of [the] claimed design focuses on the visual
`impression it creates.”).
`Considering the overall appearance of the ’625 design, we determine
`that LKQ’s proposed construction is incomplete. In addition to LKQ’s
`construction, we find certain other elements of the claimed fender, some of
`which are described by GM, are readily observable and relevant to the
`overall appearance of the claimed design.
`1) As best observed in Figures 1–4 of the ’625 patent, on the right
`side, the claimed design illustrates a door cut line having a slight
`but consistent curvature extending from the u-shaped notch
`downwards to a lower terminus of the fender, and a circular wheel
`arch extending from the lower terminus to an angular forward edge
`of the distal portion. See PO Resp. 4–5 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 35–38).
`2) A consistent width lower rearward terminus shape defined between
`the wheel arch and door cut line. See Ex. 1001, Figs. 1–2.
`3) A protrusion where the upper surface of the protrusion (shown
`highlighted green in GM’s annotated Figure 1, above) has a
`thickness and consistent width that mirrors the inside surface of the
`u-shaped notch. PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 41–42).
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`
`
`4) A gently curving first and second crease extending forwards from
`the door cut line and defining a concavity line there between. The
`first and second crease and concavity lines providing a sculpted
`appearance to the fender body below the protrusion, as best shown
`in the perspective view of Figure 1. Id. at 10; Pet. 14–15 (citing
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 46).
`5) As best seen in Figure 1 of the ’625 patent, below the first and
`second creases, the claimed design illustrates an inflection line
`defined by opposing shade lines, the inflection line extending
`between the wheel arch and door cut line. PO Resp. 10, Ex. 1001,
`Fig. 1.
`Considering Figures 1–4 and keeping these visually apparent
`characteristics of the claimed design in mind, we turn below to the
`anticipation and obviousness challenges that Petitioner has raised in this
`proceeding.
`E. Instituted Grounds
`LKQ contends that the challenged claim is unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. §§102, 103 based on U.S. Design Patent No. D773,340 S
`(Ex. 1006, “Lian”), which is assigned to BYD Company Ltd. and issued
`December 6, 2016. Pet. 18. LKQ also argues that the challenged claim is
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on Lian combined with images of
`the 2010 Hyundai Tucson (Ex. 1007) as disclosed in a promotional brochure.
`Id.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`
`
`Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
`Claim 1
`102
`Lian2
`Claim 1
`103
`Lian
`Claim 1
`103
`Lian and 2010 Hyundai Tucson3
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Principles of Law
`1. Anticipation
`The “ordinary observer” test for anticipation of a design patent is the
`same as that used for infringement, except that for anticipation, the patented
`design is compared with the alleged anticipatory reference rather than an
`accused design. Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d
`1233, 1238, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The ordinary observer test for design
`patent infringement was first enunciated by the Supreme Court in Gorham
`Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871), as follows:
`[I]f, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as
`a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same,
`if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer,
`inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the
`first one patented is infringed by the other.
`Id. at 528. The ordinary observer test requires the fact finder to consider all
`of the ornamental features illustrated in the figures that are visible at any
`time in the “normal use” lifetime of the accused product, i.e., “from the
`completion of manufacture or assembly until the ultimate destruction, loss,
`or disappearance of the article.” Int’l Seaway, 589 F.3d at 1241. In other
`
`
`2 Ex. 1006, U.S. Design Pat. No. D773,340 S (December 6, 2016).
`3 Ex. 1007, 2010 Hyundai Tucson Brochure, copyright 2009,
`http://www.auto-brochures.com/makes/Hyundai/Tucson/Hyundai US
`Tucson 2010.pdf.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`
`words, the ordinary observer test requires consideration of the design as a
`whole. See id. at 1243; Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 677. In applying the
`ordinary observer test, we must “determine whether ‘the deception that
`arises is a result of the similarities in the overall design, not of similarities in
`ornamental features in isolation.’” See Richardson, 597 F.3d at 1295.
`Additionally, while the ordinary observer test requires consideration
`of the overall prior art and claimed designs,
`[t]he mandated overall comparison is a comparison taking into
`account significant differences between the two designs, not
`minor or trivial differences that necessarily exist between any
`two designs that are not exact copies of one another. Just as
`“minor differences between a patented design and an accused
`article’s design cannot, and shall not, prevent a finding of
`infringement” . . . so too minor differences cannot prevent a
`finding of anticipation.
`Int’l Seaway, 589 F.3d at 1243 (citation omitted) (quoting Litton Sys., Inc. v.
`Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
`2.
`Obviousness
`“In addressing a claim of obviousness in a design patent, the ultimate
`inquiry . . . is whether the claimed design would have been obvious to a
`designer of ordinary skill who designs articles of the type involved.” Apple,
`Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., 678 F.3d 1314, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal
`quotation and citations omitted); see also High Point Design, 730 F.3d at
`1313 (“The use of an ‘ordinary observer’ standard to assess the potential
`obviousness of a design patent runs contrary to the precedent of this court
`and our predecessor court, under which the obviousness of a design patent
`must, instead, be assessed from the viewpoint of an ordinary designer.”).
`Often referred to as the Durling test, the obviousness analysis
`generally involves two steps: first, “one must find a single reference, a
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`
`something in existence, the design characteristics of which are basically the
`same as the claimed design”; second, “[o]nce this primary reference is
`found, other references may be used to modify it to create a design that has
`the same overall visual appearance as the claimed design.” Durling, 101
`F.3d at 103 (internal quotation and citations omitted).
`The first step has two parts; we must “(1) discern the correct visual
`impression created by the patented design as a whole; and (2) determine
`whether there is a single reference that creates ‘basically the same’ visual
`impression.” Id. In the second step, the primary reference may be modified
`by secondary references “to create a design that has the same overall visual
`appearance as the claimed design.” Id. However, the “secondary references
`may only be used to modify the primary reference if they are ‘so related [to
`the primary reference] that the appearance of certain ornamental features in
`one would suggest the application of those features to the other.’” Id.
`(alteration in original) (quoting In re Borden, 90 F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir.
`1996)).
`Also, when evaluating prior art references for purposes of determining
`patentability of ornamental designs, the focus must be on actual appearances
`and specific design characteristics rather than design concepts. Harvey, 12
`F.3d at 1064; see also Apple, 678 F.3d at 1332 (“Rather than looking to the
`‘general concept’ of a tablet, the district court should have focused on the
`distinctive ‘visual appearances’ of the reference and the claimed design.”).
`B. The Ordinary Observer
`The parties dispute who is an ordinary observer. LKQ argues that
`“the ordinary observer should be the retail consumer of an automobile.” Pet.
`40 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40; Ex. 1004 ¶ 34). GM argued in its Preliminary
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`
`Response that “the ordinary observer includes commercial buyers who
`purchase replacement vehicle front fenders to repair a customer’s vehicle,
`such as repair shop professionals.” Prelim. Resp. 7. GM noted that LKQ
`has acknowledged in a related proceeding (IPR2020-00065) that
`“replacement automobile body parts[] are typically purchased on behalf of
`vehicle owners by repair shops.” Id. (quoting IPR2020-00065, Paper 2, 21)
`(emphasis omitted).
`Before us is evidence that both automobile owners, as well as
`insurance and repair companies, desire to return vehicles to their original
`appearance. GM points to a letter from LKQ’s counsel to U.S. Customs and
`Border Protection stating that “[a]utomobile owners seek to repair their
`automobiles in a way that returns their automobile as closely as possible to
`its original appearance and condition.” Ex. 2003, 11. This letter also states
`that “[i]nsurance companies are overwhelmingly the customers in
`aftermarket repair parts market transactions, acting on behalf of their driver
`clients.” Id.
`The ’625 design claims a “vehicle front fender,” not a vehicle in total.
`Ex. 1001, code (54). Based on this, as well as the evidence from both
`parties, we determined in our Institution Decision
`that the ordinary observer includes a commercial buyer of
`replacement vehicle parts and a retail consumer of an
`automobile. That is to say, as discussed in detail below, the
`evidence on the record before us demonstrates that the designs at
`issue have such distinct and similar characteristics that either
`ordinary observer (the retail consumer or the repair shop
`professional who would be aware of prior art designs) would
`confuse the prior art designs for the design claimed by the ’625
`patent.
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`
`Inst. Dec. 12 (citation omitted). LKQ clings to its argument that Federal
`Circuit case law supports just the vehicle owner as the ordinary observer.
`See Tr. 9:20–19:8 (LKQ’s counsel arguing that “the proper ordinary
`observer in this context should be the vehicle -- the retail vehicle
`purchaser.”); see also Pet. Reply 3 (citing Pacific Coast Marine Windshields
`v. Malibu Boats, 739 F.3d 694, 701–702 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Federal Circuit
`cases are consistent in that the determination of the ordinary observer is
`factually dependent. See Arminak & Assocs., Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Calmar,
`Inc., 501 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2007), abrogated on other grounds
`by Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 665 (The Federal Circuit explaining “that
`the ordinary observer is a person who is either a purchaser of, or sufficiently
`interested in, the item that displays the patented designs and who has the
`capability of making a reasonably discerning decision when observing the
`accused item’s design whether the accused item is substantially the same as
`the item claimed in the design patent.”).
`On the facts and evidence in this proceeding, the interests and goals of
`both the vehicle owner and repair shop person are aligned, that is—in the
`context of repair, to return the vehicle to its original appearance. Ex. 2003,
`11; Ex. 2005, 3–4; Ex. 1043; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 26, 54–56. Even if we chose
`between the two, the level of detail and analysis would not change
`sufficiently to affect the outcome of this Decision. Therefore, we do not
`alter our determination made at institution, that the ordinary observer
`includes both a vehicle owner and consumer and also a replacement parts
`buyer.
`GM offers additional evidence as to the level of detail an ordinary
`observer would consider including a website selling a replacement fender for
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00534
`Patent D797,625 S
`
`the Chevrolet Equinox. PO Resp. 16–17 (citing Ex. 2005). The website
`states, for example, “[t]o replace your damaged parts, get these premium
`fenders by Replace. They are identical to OE in fit, form, and function.”
`Ex. 2005, 3–4. In light of the evidence that both a vehicle owner and repair
`shop person would desire to return a vehicle in most cases to its original
`appearance, we find Mr. Peters’ testimony persuasive that “the ordinary
`observer readily recognized incongruity associated with a part that does not
`fit or match other parts of the vehicle it is attached to.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 54. We
`understand that this type of observation and consideration would require a
`certain level of examination when determining what replacement fender to
`purchase. Thus, we find persuasive GM’s and Mr. Peters’ assertions that,
`when considering the overall appearance of a vehicle fender, “details are
`readily noticed by the ordinary observer.” PO Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2004
`¶ 56).
`
`C. The Designer of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`LKQ contends that:
`a
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
