UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`WALMART INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CARAVAN CANOPY INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01026
`Patent No. 5,944,040
`Issue Date: AUGUST 31, 1999
`Title: COLLAPSIBLE TENT FRAME
`_______________
`
`EX. 2029
`SECOND DECLARATION OF LANCE RAKE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 1
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ..................................................................... 2
`
`APPLICABLE LAW ........................................................................................................... 2
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................. 2
`
`THE ’040 PATENT ............................................................................................................. 3
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................... 15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“Center Pole” ......................................................................................................... 16
`
`“Constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof when a tent is
`pitched with the tent frame” ................................................................................... 20
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Walmart’s Proposed Construction Is Incorrect .......................................... 20
`
`This Term Should Be Given Its Ordinary And Customary Meaning ........ 26
`
`VII. WALMART’S GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ................................................... 34
`
`A. Walmart’s Alleged Motivations To Combine The References Are
`Deficient ................................................................................................................. 34
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Losi Contradicts Each Of Walmart’s Alleged Motivations And
`Would Deter A POSITA From Making Walmart’s Proposed
`Modifications ............................................................................................. 35
`
`Increasing The Pitch In Yang And Tsai Would Not Increase
`Rainwater Shedding ................................................................................... 40
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`The Tents Of Yang And Tsai Provide Adequate Rainwater
`Shedding ........................................................................................ 40
`
`Walmart’s Modifications Would Hinder, Not Increase,
`Rainwater Shedding ....................................................................... 43
`
`Its Proposed
`Walmart Does Not Explain How
`Modifications Of Yang And Tsai Would Provide Or
`Increase Rainwater Shedding ......................................................... 47
`
`B.
`
`Individual Grounds ................................................................................................ 51
`
`-i-
`
`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 2
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`
`
`1.
`
`Ground 1: Yang In View Of Lynch ........................................................... 51
`
`a)
`
`Walmart’s Modification Of Yang Fails To Provide All
`Elements Of Claim 1 ...................................................................... 52
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`The Roof Beam Bearing 8 Of Yang .................................. 53
`
`The Apex Portion 50 Of Lynch In Walmart’s
`Modification Of Yang ........................................................ 59
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Walmart’s Modification Of Yang By Lynch Would Not Be
`A Simple Arrangement Of Old Elements With Each
`Performing Their Same Respective Functions .............................. 62
`
`If Petitioner’s Modified Yang Has A Tensioned Roof,
`There Is No Reasonable Expectation Of Success In The
`Combination ................................................................................... 67
`
`2.
`
`Ground 2: Yang In View Of The Alleged AAPA ...................................... 68
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`Walmart’s Modification Of Yang Fails To Disclose All
`Elements Of Claim 1 ...................................................................... 69
`
`There Is No Reasonable Expectation Of Success In
`Combining Yang And The Alleged AAPA ................................... 70
`
`Yang Teaches Away From Walmart’s Proposed
`Modification ................................................................................... 78
`
`Walmart’s “Arranging Old Elements” Rationale Continues
`To Be Deficient .............................................................................. 80
`
`3.
`
`Ground 3: Yang In View Of Berg.............................................................. 83
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Walmart’s Modification Of Yang Fails To Disclose All
`Elements Of Claim 1 ...................................................................... 83
`
`Walmart’s Proposed Modification Of Yang Would Negate
`The Time-Saving, Automatic Mechanisms Of Yang And
`Deter A POSITA ............................................................................ 86
`
`4.
`
`Ground 4: Tsai In View Of Lynch ............................................................. 90
`
`a)
`
`Walmart’s Modification Of Tsai Fails To Disclose All
`Elements Of Claim 1 ...................................................................... 90
`
`(1)
`
`Element: “a center pole constructed for stretching ...
`a tent’s roof when a tent is pitched with the tent
`frame” ................................................................................ 90
`
`-ii-
`
`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 3
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`The Head Connector 7 Of Tsai .............................. 91
`
`In
`The Apex Portion 50 Of Lynch
`Walmart’s Modification Of Tsai By Lynch ........... 97
`
`(2)
`
`Element: “thus being collapsible at the hinge joint
`in accordance with a sliding motion of said slider
`along the side pole” ............................................................ 99
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Walmart’s Modification Does Not Improve Collapsible
`Canopies Being Difficult To Open And Close ............................ 103
`
`Walmart’s “Arranging Old Elements” Rationale Fails ................ 105
`
`5.
`
`Ground 5: Tsai In View Of The Alleged AAPA ..................................... 108
`
`a)
`
`Walmart’s Modification Of Tsai By The Alleged AAPA
`Does Not Provide All Of The Elements Of Claim 1 ................... 109
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`Element: “a center pole constructed for stretching
`and sustaining a tent’s roof when a tent is pitched
`with the tent frame” ......................................................... 109
`
`Element: “thus being collapsible at the hinge joint
`in accordance with a sliding motion of said slider
`along the side pole” .......................................................... 111
`
`There Is No Reasonable Expectation Of Success In
`Combining Yang And The Alleged AAPA ................................. 111
`
`Walmart’s “Arranging Old Elements” Rationale Continues
`To Fail .......................................................................................... 116
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`6.
`
`Grounds 6 and 7: Tsai In View Of Berg .................................................. 118
`
`a)
`
`Walmart’s Modification Of Tsai By Berg Does Not Provide
`All Of The Elements Of Claim 1 ................................................. 119
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`Element: “a center pole constructed for stretching
`and sustaining a tent’s roof when a tent is pitched
`with the tent frame” ......................................................... 119
`
`Element: “thus being collapsible at the hinge joint
`in accordance with a sliding motion of said slider
`along the side pole” .......................................................... 121
`
`b)
`
`Walmart’s “Arranging Old Elements” Rationale Continues
`To Fail .......................................................................................... 121
`
`-iii-
`
`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 4
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 123
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 5
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`114. I have been retained on behalf of Caravan Canopy International, Inc.
`
`(“Caravan” or “Patent Owner”) as an independent expert consultant regarding the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,944,040 (the “’040 patent”)
`
`filed by Walmart, Inc. (“Walmart” or “Petitioner”). (Paper No. 1, “Petition” or
`
`“Pet.”). I understand that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has since
`
`instituted trial in this proceeding. (Paper No. 12, the “Decision”).
`
`115. I previously submitted a Declaration in this matter as Exhibit 2014
`
`(my “Initial Declaration”) and a Supplemental Declaration in this matter as Exhibit
`
`2028 (my “Supplemental Declaration”).
`
`116. I submit this Second Declaration to further offer my expert opinion
`
`regarding the validity of the challenged claims of the ’040 patent in light of the
`
`grounds of unpatentability (the “Grounds”) set forth by Walmart in its Petition. To
`
`avoid confusion with my earlier declarations, this Second Declaration begins at
`
`paragraph 114.
`
`117. It remains my opinion that claims 1-3 of the ’040 patent are not
`
`unpatentable in view of the grounds of unpatentability Walmart set forth in its
`
`Petition. The substance and bases of my opinion appear in my Initial Declaration
`
`and below. In forming the opinions that I express in this Second Declaration, I
`
`have relied upon the materials identified in my Initial Declaration, the additional
`
`-1-
`
`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 6
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`
`
`materials identified in this Second Declaration and Appendix A thereto, and my
`
`own knowledge, training, and experience as described in my Initial Declaration
`
`and Supplemental Declaration.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`118. My background, professional experience, and qualifications are set
`
`forth in Section II and Appendix A of my Initial Declaration and in Section III and
`
`Appendix C of my Supplemental Declaration. Based on my background,
`
`professional experience, and qualifications, I believe that I am qualified to provide
`
`expert opinion testimony in this matter that will help the trier of fact to understand
`
`the evidence in this matter and to determine facts at issue in this matter.
`
`III. APPLICABLE LAW
`
`119. My understanding of the law applicable to the validity or patentability
`
`of a United States Patent is set forth in Section III of my Initial Declaration. I have
`
`applied this law to the facts in this matter in my analysis and in rendering my
`
`opinions.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`120. My opinion regarding the level of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) working in the field of the invention of the ’040 patent at the time of
`
`the invention set forth in the ’040 patent is set forth in Section IV of my Initial
`
`Declaration. I was at least a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the earliest
`
`-2-
`
`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 7
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`
`
`filing date of the ’040 patent based on my background, professional experience,
`
`and qualifications at that time. All of my opinions as to the understanding of a
`
`POSITA made herein and in my Initial Declaration are as of the time of the
`
`invention of the ’040 patent, even when written in the present tense.
`
`V. THE ’040 PATENT
`
`121. A description of the ’040 patent is provided in Section V of my Initial
`
`Declaration. The following supplements that description.
`
`122. The ’040 patent states that:
`
`
`
`When it is necessary to pitch the tent, the four side poles 10 are
`
`pushed outwardly at the same time, thus stretching the tent frame.
`
`When the side poles 10 are pushed outwardly as described above, the
`
`sliders 70 move upward along the side poles 10 while stretching the
`
`two types of ribs 20 and 30. Therefore, the tent frame stretches and
`
`sustains the canvas or other material and pitches the tent.
`
`
`
`In such a case, the center pole ribs 30 are fully stretched by the
`
`support links 40, which connect the ribs 30 to the sliders 70, with the
`
`hinge joints 30a of the ribs 30 being moved upwardly. Therefore, the
`
`center pole 50 moves upwardly and sustains the center of the roof
`
`while stretching the roof as shown in FIG. 4.
`
`-3-
`
`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 8
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`When the tent is pitched with the frame being fully stretched as
`
`described above, the center pole 50 moves upwardly along with the
`
`center pole ribs 30, so the tent frame of this invention heightens the
`
`interior space of the tent in comparison with a typical collapsible tent
`
`frame. Therefore, the tent frame of this invention allows users to
`
`freely go out of, come into or stand in the tent without being
`
`concerned about bumping one's head against the center pole ribs 30 or
`
`the center pole 50.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 3:16-37) (emphasis added).
`
`-4-
`
`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 9
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`123. In my opinion, a POSITA would understand that the ’040 patent
`
`describes, as its inventive embodiment, that the roof material, described as being
`
`canvas as an example, is placed over the tent frame prior to the side poles 10 being
`
`fully pushed outwardly. The action of the side poles 10 being pushed outwardly,
`
`or spread apart, causes the sliders 70 to move upwardly along the side poles 10,
`
`thereby rotating the center pole ribs 30 to their straightened orientation. As the
`
`center pole ribs 30 are rotated into their straightened orientation, the roof material
`
`-5-
`
`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 10
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`
`
`must already be placed over the center pole ribs 30 and the center pole 50 for the
`
`tent frame (i.e., the side poles 10) and the center pole 50 to “move[] upwardly and
`
`sustain[] the center of the roof while stretching the roof” as described in the ’040
`
`patent. (Ex. 1001, 3:20-21, 26-28) (emphasis added).
`
`124. As explained in my Initial Declaration, stretching (or tension) requires
`
`two opposite balancing forces. (See, e.g., Ex. 2014, Section VII(A)(3)(c)). In my
`
`opinion, a POSITA would understand that Figure 4 of the ’040 patent shows a
`
`friction modifying element present on the side poles 10 between the connector 60
`
`and the slider 70. While not explicitly described in the ’040 patent, the area of the
`
`side poles 10 between the connector 60 and the slider 70 is illustrated with
`
`stippling while the remainder of the side poles 10 below the slider 70 is shown
`
`without any stippling (indicated by the red arrows). Thus, in my opinion, Figure 4
`
`of the ’040 patent discloses the presence of a friction modifier to secure the roof
`
`material to the tent frame, as described in the ’040 patent and recited in claim 1.
`
`Based on my experience in the relevant art and the common materials in the art at
`
`the time of the invention of the ’040 patent, in my opinion, a POSITA would
`
`understand that the stippling in Figure 4 of the ’040 represents hook and loop
`
`fastener, which is more commonly known by its tradename, Velcro. I understand
`
`that, by using a hook and loop fastener at where the roof material contacts the side
`
`poles 10, the roof material would be secured to the tent frame and could be
`
`-6-
`
`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 11
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 12
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`
`
`other U.S. patents that describe various ways that a tent’s roof may be secured to
`
`the tent’s frame.
`
`126. U.S. Patent No. 4,641,676 to Lynch (Ex. 2020, the “’676 patent)
`
`describes that one or more cords 170 are connected between adjacent legs 16, and
`
`the covering 14 has side panels 164 with Velcro-type connector that loop around
`
`the cords 170. (Ex. 2020, 5:31-45). In my opinion, in this embodiment the cord(s)
`
`170 act as the tension member in the tent frame to stress the tent frame rather than
`
`the roof material. (Id., 5:39-40 (“[T]hese cords are formed of an elastic material so
`
`that they may lend further rigidity to the canopy shelter.”)). Figure 4 of the ’676
`
`patent is reproduced below.
`
`-8-
`
`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 13
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`127. As another example, U.S. Patent No. 5,275,188 to Tsai (Ex. 2016, the
`
`“’188 patent”)1, which is also mentioned in the body of the ’040 patent, describes
`
`that the awning 12 has holes at the four corners and the support assembly 11 has
`
`
`1 The ’853 patent (“Tsai”) (Ex. 1006), the ’188 patent (Ex. 2016), and the ’923
`
`(“Losi”) (Ex. 2015) appear to share at least one common inventor in Ming Tsai.
`
`-9-
`
`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 14
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`
`
`studs corresponding to these holes in the awning 12. (Ex. 2016, 3:4-15). The ’188
`
`patent describes that “[t]he studs fit into the locating holes, and secured thereto by
`
`tightening wing nuts 18 on the studs, so that the awning 12 can be properly secured
`
`upon the support assembly 11. (Id., 3:10-13). The ’188 patent describes that “the
`
`awning [12] is secured with the wind nuts and studs to the support assembly ... and
`
`[the tent’s] stability is [] increased” and that “[t]he resilient inner supporter
`
`disposed in the topmost supporter increases the tension of the awning.” (Id., 3:51-
`
`54, 56-58).
`
`128. Figure 2 of the ’188 patent (below left) shows the tent in a closed
`
`position while Figure 3 thereof (below right) shows the tent in its expanded
`
`position. (Id., 2:39-42). Similar to the description of the ’040 patent discussed
`
`above, the ’188 patent shows that the awning 12 is positioned over and secured to
`
`the support assembly 11 prior to the support assembly 11 being expanded. Further,
`
`in the tent of the ’188 patent, the discussed tension in the awning 12 would be
`
`provided due to the force of the topmost support 15 and its resilient inner supporter
`
`17 applied to the awning 12 balancing with the force applied to the awning 12 by
`
`the studs and wing nuts 18 on the support assembly 11 securing the awning 12 to
`
`the tent frame.
`
`-10-
`
`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 15
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`129. U.S. Patent No. 4,779,635 to Lynch (Ex. 1007, “Lynch”), cited by
`
`Walmart in its Petition, is also mentioned in the body of the ’040 patent and
`
`describes that the covering 12 is secured to the corner support member 22 “by
`
`means of corresponding hook and loop fasteners, such as Velcro fasteners 35.”
`
`(Ex. 1007, 6:60-64; Figure 3 (below)). Lynch further describes that “the
`
`restorative biasing of upper member 58 causes head 59 to maintain tension on
`
`canopy covering 12 so that top panels 16 are maintained in a taut condition
`
`regardless of environmental conditions.” (Id., 6:67-7:3). As explained in
`
`paragraphs 96 and 97 of my Initial Declaration, the tension in the canopy covering
`
`12 would be provided by the force of the head 59 pushing against the canopy
`
`covering 12 balancing with the force applied to the canopy covering 12 by the
`
`Velcro fasteners 35 on the corner support members 22 securing the canopy
`
`covering 12 to the canopy framework 20.
`
`-11-
`
`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 16
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`130. Further similar to the ’040 patent, Lynch describes that the canopy
`
`covering 12 is “positioned over canopy structure 10” and the “mating Velcro
`
`fasteners on the inside of each of these pockets of side panels 18 are then secured
`
`to mating fasteners 35” before the canopy structure 10 is fully expanded. (Id.,
`
`7:53-62).” Indeed, Lynch continues, stating that it is only “[a]fter securing
`
`covering 12, [that] the user than fully extends each roof support member 40 and
`
`latches the associated button latches 45 to maintain roof support members 40 in the
`
`fully extended position.” (Id., 7:62-65).
`
`-12-
`
`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 17
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`
`
`131. The inventive tent disclosed in the ’040 patent would be referred to by
`
`a POSITA as a stressed tent frame. In a stressed tent frame, some or all of the tent
`
`frame components are assembled under stress (i.e., tension or compression), and
`
`this latent stress helps stabilize the tent frame. Because tent frame generally use
`
`semi-rigid (e.g., fiberglass or aluminum) poles and ribs, an elastic member is
`
`generally provided to provide a sustainable tensile force to the tent frame. As
`
`some examples, the roof material may be the source of tension in the tent, or as in
`
`the ’676 patent, elastic cords may be stretched between the tent legs to be the
`
`source of tension in the tent. In other words, the tent frame may stretch the roof
`
`material, and the roof material will resist this stretching, generating tension in the
`
`roof material and imparting stresses into the tent frame to stabilize the tent frame.
`
`By placing the roof material on the tent frame prior to it being fully expanded, the
`
`user can leverage the different joints of the tent frame to assist with stretching the
`
`roof material as the tent frame is assembled. As discussed above, the ’040 patent
`
`describes
`
`the
`
`roof material being
`
`stretched as
`
`the
`
`tent
`
`frame
`
`is
`
`expanded/assembled, requiring that the roof material be placed over the tent frame
`
`before the frame is fully expanded.
`
`132. In my opinion, Lynch and the ’188 patent described above and listed
`
`on the face of the ’040 patent describe stressed tent frames because the expanded
`
`-13-
`
`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 18
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`
`
`tent frame would be placed under stress, even in a resting state, due to the tension
`
`imparted on the roof during assembly.
`
`133. Different from a stressed tent frame, freestanding tent frames have
`
`roofs that are simply draped over (or suspended below) the tent frame. The
`
`freestanding tent frames are stabilized by the weight of the roof material on the tent
`
`frame, but the roof material is not stretched (or placed into tension) during
`
`assembly.2 Thus, different from the stressed tent frame discussed above,
`
`freestanding tent frames do not require that the roof material be placed over the
`
`tent frame prior to the tent frame being fully extended or that the roof material be
`
`secured to the tent frame at all. Rather, because the roof material is not stretched
`
`or tensioned (or is stretched after tent assembly via guy wire to the ground, for
`
`example), it is often easier for users to simply arrange the roof material over the
`
`fully-expanded tent structure and then raise the legs of the tent structure to finalize
`
`assembly of the tent.
`
`134. As discussed in more detail below, in my opinion, Yang (Ex. 1004)
`
`and Tsai (Ex. 1006) describe freestanding tent frames, not stressed tent frames. In
`
`2 In some instances, the roof material may be stretched via guy wire that is staked
`
`into the ground. This is still different than stressed tent frame since the stretching
`
`(or tension) is applied between the ground and the tent frame, rather than internally
`
`to the tent frame (i.e., between two or more points on the tent frame).
`
`-14-
`
`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 19
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`
`
`particular, neither Yang nor Tsai describes the roof material as being stretched (or
`
`tensioned), an assembly process requiring (or even recommending) that the roof
`
`material be laid over the tent frame before the tent frame is fully expanded, or even
`
`that the roof material is secured to the tent frame at all. In fact, Tsai does not
`
`appear to even mention a roof (or roof material) in the context of its allegedly
`
`inventive embodiment at all.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`135. Claim 1 of the ’040 patent recites, in part, “A collapsible tent frame,
`
`comprising: a center pole constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof
`
`when a tent is pitched with the tent frame.” I understand that the words and
`
`phrases of a claim are generally interpreted to have their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, as would have been understood by a POSITA in the context of the entire
`
`patent, including the specification, at the time of the invention.
`
`136. In my opinion, upon reviewing the ’040 patent as a whole, I find no
`
`reason to interpret the terms (1) “center pole” and (2) “constructed for stretching
`
`and sustaining a tent’s roof when a tent is pitched with the tent frame” differently
`
`than their ordinary and customary meaning. However, I understand that Walmart
`
`has proposed its own construction for each of these terms, which I address below.
`
`-15-
`
`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 20
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`
`
`A.
`
`“Center Pole”
`
`137. Walmart alleges that the term “center pole” should be interpreted to
`
`mean a “centrally-disposed, long, slender object.” (Pet., p. 28). However,
`
`Walmart provides no apparent clarification on what “long” and “slender” mean or
`
`how an object could be recognized to be “long” and “slender” versus, for example,
`
`“short” and “plump.” Thus, it is my opinion that Walmart needlessly supplants the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of “center pole” with an ambiguous
`
`interpretation.
`
`138. It is also my opinion that Walmart provides no support for its
`
`proposed interpretation. For example, although Walmart alleges that “the intrinsic
`
`record confirms that ‘pole’ carries its ordinary and customary meaning: ‘long,
`
`slender object,’” it simultaneously implies that the specification, which I
`
`understand to form part of the intrinsic record, does not explicitly support its
`
`interpretation (Id. (stating that “[t]he only disclosure related to the center pole in
`
`the specification is that it ‘has a simple construction’ and connects to each of the
`
`center pole ribs.”)).
`
`139. Walmart appears
`
`to rely entirely on
`
`its own description or
`
`interpretation of the drawings of the ’040 patent to find any support for its
`
`proposed interpretation. For example, Walmart describes—in its own words—the
`
`center pole 6 in FIG. 2 and the center pole 50 in FIG. 4 of the ’040 patent as being
`
`-16-
`
`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 21
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`
`
`“a long, slender object” and “an elongated, slender object,” (emphasis added)3
`
`respectively, but then concludes, based on its own interpretation, that there is
`
`support in the “intrinsic record” for its proposed construction. In my opinion,
`
`Walmart errs in its analysis because it fallaciously relies upon its own
`
`interpretation of the drawings to support its proposal. (Id., at p. 29).
`
`140. Importantly, Walmart appears to only consider the term “center pole”
`
`by way of its two constituent words, first interpreting the word “pole” in isolation
`
`before tacking on “centrally-disposed” to its interpretation to arrive at an
`
`interpretation of “center pole.” (See Pet., pp. 28-30). In my opinion, a POSITA
`
`would not dissect the term “center pole” into its constituent words but would
`
`instead interpret it as a single phrase. A center pole, as it is used in the context of
`
`tent design, is completely different from a telephone pole or a fishing pole, which
`
`are manufactured to particular industry standards or norms. A POSITA would
`
`understand that there is no need for a “center pole” to be “long and slender” as
`
`
`3 It is unclear to me what, if any, difference Walmart’s means to impart between
`
`“long” and “elongated.” In my opinion, this simply adds further ambiguity to
`
`Walmart’s position.
`
`-17-
`
`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 22
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`
`
`Walmart proposes—it only needs to be "the central determinant, the pole bearing
`
`the most weight of the tent structure."4
`
`141. Walmart again takes it upon itself to describe—in its own words—the
`
`side poles 10 in FIG. 3 and the center pole 50 in FIG. 4 of the ’040 patent as being
`
`“long and slender.” (Id.). As explained above, it is my opinion that Walmart does
`
`not provide support from the intrinsic record for its interpretation by relying upon
`
`its own description of elements in the ’040 patent.
`
`142. Further, Walmart concedes that “[w]hile the ‘side poles’ are longer
`
`than the ‘center pole,’ in all instances the poles have an identifiable length in
`
`relation to the width of the poles.” (Id., at pp. 29-30). However, Walmart’s
`
`proposed interpretation of “pole” does not draw any explicit connection between
`
`the length and width of the center pole or of any other pole. Furthermore, by
`
`describing both the side poles 10 and the center pole 50 as “long,” while
`
`simultaneously alleging that the side poles 10 “are longer” than the center pole 50,
`
`Walmart further renders ambiguous the word “long” in its interpretation of, “long,
`
`slender object.”
`
`143. Finally, Walmart alleges that the prosecution history of the ’040
`
`patent supports its definition because (1) the examiner allegedly stated that Lynch
`
`taught that the apex portion 50 was a center pole, (2) the patentee did not dispute
`
`4 https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/opinion/06iht-edsafire.1.9037962.html
`
`-18-
`
`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 23
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`
`
`the examiner’s allegation, and (3) the apex portion 50 of Lynch—once again in
`
`Walmart’s words—is “a long, slender element.” (Pet., p. 30). In my opinion,
`
`Walmart’s analysis is flawed for the obvious reason that the patentee’s failure to
`
`dispute the examiner’s alleged comparison between the apex portion 50 of Lynch
`
`and the center pole of claim 1 does not amount to an adoption by the patentee of
`
`Walmart’s description of the apex portion 50.
`
`144. Although Walmart alleges that certain dictionaries support its
`
`interpretations of the constituent words of the term “center pole,” I understand that
`
`extrinsic evidence is considered to be unlikely to provide a reliable interpretation
`
`of the terms of a patent claim unless considered in the context of intrinsic evidence
`
`of the patent. (Pet. pp. 30-31). For the reasons provided above, it is my opinion
`
`that Walmart has not shown any intrinsic evidence that explicitly supports its
`
`proposed construction. It is also my opinion that the dictionaries cited by Walmart
`
`are not reliable for understanding the “center pole” in claim 1 from the viewpoint
`
`of POSITA at the time of the invention because a POSITA would not deconstruct
`
`the term “center pole” into its constituent terms and attempt to interpret each
`
`separately. It should be noted that, to the extent that extrinsic evidence is
`
`considered reliable, terms such as “center pole” and “long pole in the tent” have
`
`become very popular metaphors—never as descriptors for “long, slender objects,”
`
`but rather to reference the meaning and significance of a center pole. “The long
`
`-19-
`
`CCI Ex. 2029 – Page 24
`Walmart Inc. v. Caravan Canopy Intl., Inc.
`IPR2020-01026
`
`

`

`
`
`pole in a tent will determine the height of the tent, just as the longest, most time
`
`consuming, part of a project will determine the length of a project.”5
`
`145. Likewise, the long pole in a tent usually is in the center, and bears
`
`most of the weight, making it the most important. Therefore, the long pole in the
`
`tent in the metaphorical sense can also be the most important. For these reasons,
`
`Walmart’s proposed construction of this claim term should be denied.
`
`B.
`
`“Constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof when a
`
`tent is pitched with the tent frame”
`
`146. Walmart alleges that the phrase, “constructed for stretching and
`
`sustaining a tent’s roof” means “made to heighten and hold up the tent covering.”
`
`(Pet., pp. 32-33). However, in my opinion, Walmart incorrectly reinterprets
`
`“stretching” as “to heighten,” which is unsupported and inconsistent with its
`
`ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`1. Wa