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
`_____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`V.
`
`4.
`
`b)
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
`I.
`THE ’040 PATENT .............................................................................. 2
`II.
`III. ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................................... 4
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................. 4
`A.
`“center pole” ............................................................................... 5
`B.
`“constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof
`when a tent is pitched with the tent frame” ................................ 6
`1.
`Petitioner’s Proposal Is Incorrect ..................................... 6
`2.
`Plain and Ordinary Meaning ............................................ 9
`PETITIONER FAILS TO PROVE UNPATENTABILITY
`OF THE ’040 PATENT ...................................................................... 13
`A. Ground 1: Yang in view of Lynch ........................................... 14
`1.
`Translation of Yang ....................................................... 14
`2.
`Overview of Yang .......................................................... 15
`3.
`Petitioner’s Modified Yang Fails
`To Provide Claim 1, Element A ..................................... 17
`a)
`Yang ..................................................................... 18
`b)
`Lynch ................................................................... 19
`Petitioner Set Forth No Sufficient Reason
`To Combine These References ...................................... 20
`a) Modified Yang Would Not Have
`Increased Headroom ............................................ 22
`Petitioner’s Reasoning For Increasing
`Canopy Pitch Is Incorrect And Contradicted
`By Contemporaneous Art .................................... 24
`(1)
`Petitioner’s Modification Would Impede
`Rainwater Shedding .................................. 25
`Petitioner’s Modification Would Not
`Increase Aesthetic Appeal ......................... 27
`
`(2)
`
`
`113265906.6
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`Petitioner’s “Arranging Old Elements”
`Rationale Is Conclusory And Incomplete ............ 28
`Contemporaneous Art Counters All
`of Petitioner’s Alleged Motivations
`To Combine Yang and Lynch ............................. 32
`B. Ground 2: Yang in view of AAPA ........................................... 33
`Petitioner’s Proposed Combination Fails
`1.
`To Disclose Claim 1, Element A ................................... 33
`There Is No Reasonable Expectation Of Success
`In Petitioner’s Combination ........................................... 34
`Yang Teaches Away From This Modification .............. 39
`Petitioner’s Proposed Motivations
`For This Combination Fail ............................................. 40
`Petitioner’s “Arranging Old Elements”
`Rationale Remains Deficient ......................................... 41
`C. Ground 3: Yang in view of Berg .............................................. 42
`1. Modified Yang Does Not Provide
`Claim 1, Element A ........................................................ 42
`Petitioner Sets Forth No Reasonable Motivation
`To Combine Yang And Berg ......................................... 43
`D. Ground 4: Tsai in view of Lynch ............................................. 45
`1.
`Tsai ................................................................................. 45
`2. Modified Tsai Does Not Disclose Claim 1, Element A . 46
`3.
`Tsai Does Not Disclose Claim 1, Element C3 ............... 48
`4.
`Petitioner’s Recycled Motivations to Combine
`Remain Deficient ........................................................... 50
`Petitioner’s Recycled “Arranging Old Elements”
`Rationale Continues To Fail .......................................... 51
`Ground 5: Tsai in view of AAPA............................................. 52
`Tsai Fails To Disclose Claim 1,
`1.
`Elements A And C3 ....................................................... 52
`Petitioner’s Modified Tsai Would Not Provide
`Element A ...................................................................... 52
`
`2.
`
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`2.
`
`E.
`
`5.
`
`2.
`
`
`113265906.6
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner’s Allegations Of Obviousness
`Are Legally Deficient .................................................... 53
`Petitioner’s “Arranging Old Elements” R
`ationale Remains Deficient ............................................ 56
`Grounds 6 and 7: Tsai in view of Berg (and Carter) ................ 57
`1.
`These Grounds Fail To Satisfy The Rules ..................... 57
`2.
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated
`To Make Either Modification ........................................ 60
`Petitioner’s Second Interpretation Suffers
`Additional Deficiencies ................................................. 62
`Petitioner’s “Arranging Old Elements”
`Rationale Remains Deficient ......................................... 63
`VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 64
`
`
`
`F.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`113265906.6
`
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 38
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 34
`Comcast Cable Comm’s, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01066, Paper 36 (Oct.15, 2018) .......................................................... 30
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 29
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 40
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 13
`Elbit Sys. of America, LLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 57
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., et al.,
`IPR2017-01524, Paper 7 (Dec. 4, 2017) ....................................................... 59, 61
`FedEx Corp. v. Flectere LLC,
`IPR2020-00403, Paper 8 (June 26, 2020) ........................................................... 27
`Freebit AS v. Bose Corp.,
`IPR2017-01309, Paper 8 (Nov. 8, 2017) ............................................................ 22
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 1
`Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 7
`In-Depth Geophysical, Inc. v. ConocoPhillips Co.,
`IPR2019-00850, Paper 56 (Sept. 3, 2020) ............................................................ 1
`InfoBionic, Inc. v. Braemar Manufacturing, LLC,
`IPR2015-01704, Paper 11 (Feb. 16, 2016) ......................................................... 21
`
`
`113265906.6
`
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`
`
`Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., et al.,
`IPR2018-00827, Paper 9 (Oct. 16, 2018) ........................................................... 20
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 21
`Kranos Corp. v. Riddell, Inc.,
`IPR2016-01650, Paper 10 (Feb. 22, 2017) ......................................................... 28
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ........................................................................................ 1, 28
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 13, 21
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 7
`NJOY, Inc. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2015-01301, Paper 16 (Dec. 8, 2015)........................................................... 28
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ............................................................ 4
`In re Ratti,
`270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959) ................................................................................ 30
`TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................... 25, 55
`Wowza Media Systems, LLC v. Adobe Systems Incorp.,
`IPR2013-00054, Paper 12 (April 8, 2013) ......................................................... 28
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ................................................................................................... 13
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................. 48
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5) .......................................................................... 1, 19, 59
`
`
`
`
`113265906.6
`
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`Description
`Caravan Canopy Int’l, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., et al.,
`No. SACV 19-01072, Order Consolidating Cases, dated
`December 13, 2019
`Caravan Canopy Int’l, Inc. v. Costco Wholesale
`Corporation, et al., No. SACV 19-01072, Scheduling
`Order, dated January 27, 2020
`Caravan Canopy Int’l, Inc. v. Walmart Inc., et al., No.
`19-06978 Consolidated with 19-01072, Walmart’s
`Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Stay Litigation
`Pending Inter Partes Review, dated June 18, 2020
`Caravan Canopy Int’l, Inc. v. Lowe’s Home Centers,
`LLC et al., No. 19-06952 Consolidated with 19-01072,
`Request for Clarification re Stay of Litigation, dated
`August 26, 2020
`Caravan Canopy Int’l, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
`et al., No. SACV 19-01072, Order Denying Defendants’
`Request for Clarification, dated August 28, 2020
`Claim Chart for Walmart’s Ozark Trial Canopy, dated
`December 9, 2019
`Caravan Canopy Int’l, Inc. v. Walmart Inc., et al., No.
`19-06978 Consolidated with 19-01072, Defendant
`Walmart Inc.’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, dated
`March 16, 2020
`2008 Walmart’s Initial Invalidity Contentions Claim Chart –
`Ex. D
`2009 Walmart’s Initial Invalidity Contentions Claim Chart –
`Ex. A
`Caravan Canopy Int’l, Inc. v. Costco Wholesale
`Corporation, et al., No. 19-01072, Costco Wholesale
`Corporation’s Invalidity Contentions and Accompanying
`Document Production, dated November 4, 2019
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2010
`
`Previously
`Served
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`113265906.6
`
`
`-vi-
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`2015
`2016
`2017
`2018
`2019
`2020
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`Description
`Caravan Canopy Int’l, Inc. v. Z-Shade Co. LTD., et al.,
`No. 19-06224, Z-Shade Co., LTD.’s Invalidity
`Contentions and Accompanying Document Production,
`dated November 4, 2019
`Caravan Canopy Int’l, Inc. v. Shelterlogic Corp., et al.,
`No. 19-01224 Consolidated with 19-01072, Invalidity
`Contentions of Shelterlogic Corp., dated January 21,
`2020
`Caravan Canopy Int’l, Inc. v. Lowe’s Home Centers,
`LLC et al., No. 19-06952, Lowe’s Invalidity Contentions
`and Accompanying Document Production, dated
`November 4, 2019
`Declaration of Lance Rake
`U.S. Patent No. 5,701,923 to Losi, Jr. et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,275,188 to Tsai
`U.S. Patent No. 5,421,356 to Lynch
`U.S. Patent No. 5,634,483 to Gwin
`U.S. Patent No. 5,794,640 to Jang
`U.S. Patent No. 4,641,676 to Lynch
`U.S. Patent No. 4,607,656 to Carter
`Caravan Canopy Int’l, Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et
`al., No. SACV 19-01072, Response to “Request for
`Clarification re Stay of Litigation,” dated August 27,
`2020
`Caravan Canopy Int’l, Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et
`al., No. SACV 19-01072, Amended Scheduling Order,
`dated August 11, 2020
`Caravan Canopy Int’l, Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et
`al., No. SACV 19-01072, Costco Wholesale
`Corporation’s Final Invalidity Contentions and
`Accompanying Document Production, dated August 18,
`2020
`
`
`113265906.6
`
`
`-vii-
`
`Previously
`Served
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2031
`
`Description
`Caravan Canopy Int’l, Inc. v. Z-Shade Co. LTD, et al.,
`No. SACV 19-06224, Z-Shade Co. LTD’s Final
`Invalidity Contentions and Accompanying Document
`Production, dated August 18, 2020
`Caravan Canopy Int’l, Inc. v. ShelterLogic Corp.
`No. SACV 19-01072, Invalidity Contentions of
`ShelterLogic Corp., dated March 16, 2020
`Caravan Canopy Int’l, Inc. v. Lowe’s Home Centers,
`LLC, No. SACV 19-006952, Lowe’s Invalidity
`Contentions and Accompanying Document Production,
`dated November 4, 2019
`Supplemental Declaration of Lance Rake
`Second Declaration of Lance Rake
`Patent Owner’s Certified Translation of Petitioner’s
`Exhibit 1005 (Japanese Unexamined Utility Model
`Application Publication No. H1-61370 to Yang, et al.)
`Resume of Translator of Exhibit 2030
`
`Previously
`Served
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`113265906.6
`
`
`-viii-
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION1
`
`“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with
`
`particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid
`
`Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). To that end, the Petition “must
`
`‘specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents ... relied
`
`upon.’” In-Depth Geophysical, Inc. v. ConocoPhillips Co., IPR2019-00850, Paper
`
`56, *27 (Sept. 3, 2020) (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)). And when, as here, the
`
`grounds of unpatentability involve a combination of teachings, there must have been
`
`“‘an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the
`
`patent at issue.’” Id. (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
`
`(2007)). In short, to set forth a proper obviousness-type ground of unpatentability,
`
`“the Petition must identify both the specific teaching in each prior art reference that
`
`it relies upon with respect to each claim limitation, and a rationale for why one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have combined those specific teaching in the specific
`
`manner claimed.” Id. (emphasis in original).
`
`In its Petition, Petitioner simply recasts references and concepts considered
`
`by the examiner and, in many cases, listed on the face of the ’040 Patent, in allowing
`
`the ’040 Patent. The only “new” reference is 94-year old Berg, but Petitioner’s
`
`
`1 This paper is timely per the parties’ joint stipulation. (Paper 19).
`
`
`113265906.6
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`
`
`reliance on Berg runs counter to the very advances touted by the primary references.
`
`Petitioner attempts to present these previously-considered references and concepts
`
`by proposing—and
`
`then relying upon—facially deficient and self-serving
`
`constructions of critical claim terms. And by casting its asserted Grounds under the
`
`veil of its deficient constructions, Petitioner fails to prove that the challenged claims
`
`are unpatentable.
`
`II. THE ’040 PATENT
`
`The ’040 Patent discloses a collapsible tent frame that “is easily and quickly
`
`stretchable or collapsible” and provides “an enlarged and heightened interior space
`
`to users.” (Ex. 1001, 1:9-10, 3:4-6). 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.
`When the tent is pitched with the frame being fully stretched as
`described above, the center pole 50 moves upwardly along with the
`
`
`113265906.6
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`(Id., 3:16-37).
`
`
`
`That is to say, in pitching the tent disclosed in the ’040 Patent, the roof is
`
`placed over the side poles 10, the center pole ribs 30, and the center pole 50 prior to
`
`the side poles 10 being pushed outwardly to their final positions, and as the side
`
`poles 10 are pushed outwardly, the center pole 50 moves upwardly with the center
`
`pole ribs 30 to stretch and sustain the roof. (Ex. 2029, ¶¶122-23).
`
`
`
`
`113265906.6
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`
`
`III. ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`The ’040 Patent is generally directed to a collapsible tent. (Ex. 1001, [54]).
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the initial filing date
`
`of the ’040 patent would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in the
`
`mechanical arts, including but not limited to mechanical engineering and industrial
`
`design, at least two years’ experience in the field of consumer product design,
`
`development, and/or manufacturing, and at least a basic understanding of
`
`ergonomics, which is the applied science relating to designing products that are to
`
`be used by people so that the people can safely and efficiently interact with the
`
`products. (Ex. 2014, ¶31).
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`“[T]he words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning,’ which is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in question at the time of the invention ... in the context of the entire
`
`patent, including the specification.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). While “extrinsic evidence may be
`
`useful ... it is unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation of patent claim scope unless
`
`considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence.” Id. at 1319.
`
`Petitioner proposes constructions for “center pole” and “constructed for
`
`stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof” as recited in claim 1. (Pet., 27-33). Petitioner
`
`
`113265906.6
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`
`
`submitted proposed constructions for other claim terms in the Underlying Litigation2
`
`but concedes that these constructions “are not necessary for institution purposes,”3
`
`drawing a clear distinction between its proposed constructions that apparently are
`
`necessary for this proceeding with its other proposed constructions it deems “not
`
`necessary.” (Compare Pet., 34 (addressing constructions that “are not necessary for
`
`institution purposes”) with Pet., 28-33 (addressing “center pole” and “constructed
`
`for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof”)).
`
`A.
`“center pole”
`Petitioner alleges that “center pole” should be construed as “centrally-
`
`disposed, long, slender object.” (Pet., 28). The District Court denied Petitioner’s
`
`same proposal, and Petitioner’s proposal should be denied here for the same reasons.
`
`(Ex. 1018, 6-10).
`
`Briefly, Petitioner’s proposal provides no guidance as to how a POSTIA
`
`would understand “long” or “slender,” needlessly injecting uncertainty into the
`
`claims. (Ex. 2029, ¶137). For example, Petitioner alleges that “both the ‘center pole
`
`
`2 Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s defined term “Underlying Litigation.”
`
`(See Pet., 84).
`
`3 Patent Owner agrees that the other claim terms identified in the Petition need not
`
`be construed and, thus, are not addressed herein.
`
`
`113265906.6
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`
`
`50’ and ‘side poles 10’ are long and slender” but then admits that “the ‘side poles’
`
`are longer than the ‘center pole,’” calling into question what is “long” in the context
`
`of Petitioner’s proposed construction. (Pet., 29-30; Ex. 2029, ¶¶141-42). The
`
`District Court faced this same dilemma. (Ex. 1018, 9 (“Defendants do not explain
`
`how to evaluate whether an object is ‘long’ and ‘slender’, and it is unclear to the
`
`Court whether ‘center pole 50’ is long and slender.”)). Thus, Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction of “center pole” should be dismissed.
`
`Patent Owner agrees with the District Court’s ruling that the term “center
`
`pole” need not be construed and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`(Id., 11, 20; Ex. 2029, ¶136).
`
`B.
`
`“constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof when a tent
`is pitched with the tent frame”
`1.
`Petitioner’s Proposal Is Incorrect
`Petitioner argues that “constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof”
`
`should be construed to mean “made to heighten and hold up the tent covering.”4
`
`(Pet., 32-33). The District Court denied Petitioner’s same proposal. (Ex. 1018,
`
`10-11).
`
`Petitioner argues that the “‘heighten’ portion of [its] construction says the
`
`
`4 Petitioner omits “when a tent is pitched with the tent frame” from its proposed
`
`construction without explanation.
`
`
`113265906.6
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`
`
`same thing [as stretching] in simpler terms” and “sustain” means “to hold up:
`
`support.” (Pet., 33). Patent Owner does not dispute that “sustain” means “to hold
`
`up” or “support” but objects to Petitioner’s suggestion that “stretching” can be
`
`replaced with “to heighten” because it “says the same thing” when it does not. (Ex.
`
`2029, ¶146).
`
`First, “stretching” and “sustaining” are presumed to have different meanings.
`
`Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008) (“Our precedent instructs that different claim terms are presumed to have
`
`different meanings.”). The ’040 Patent confirms this presumption. (Ex. 1001, 3:26-
`
`28 (“[T]he center pole 50 moves upwardly and sustains the center of the roof while
`
`stretching the roof as shown in FIG. 4.”) (emphasis added); Ex. 2029, ¶¶157, 160
`
`n.6).
`
`Petitioner’s proposal would render “stretching” and “sustaining” redundant
`
`because heightening and holding up describe the same function. Merck & Co. v.
`
`Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim
`
`construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one
`
`that does not do so.”). A POSITA would understand that a tent’s roof cannot be held
`
`up without also being heightened. (Ex. 2029, ¶157). Thus, Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction renders “stretching” redundant of “sustaining” and should be
`
`dismissed. (Id.).
`
`
`113265906.6
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`
`
`Second, Petitioner’s proposed replacement of “stretching” with “to heighten”
`
`is contrary to both the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. (Id., ¶¶147-56). Petitioner
`
`incorrectly asserts that “[t]he function of the center pole to heighten and hold up the
`
`tent covering accomplishes the goal of the ’040 Patent.” (Pet., 33; Ex. 2029, ¶¶149-
`
`51). As explained in Section V.A.4.a, infra, the height of the roof support structure
`
`above the ground dictates the usable headroom—referred to as clear headroom—
`
`under the tent, not the height of the roof itself. (Ex. 2029, ¶152). Indeed, the ’040
`
`Patent describes that the increase in headroom over prior designs is achieved by
`
`raising the center pole ribs 30 and the center pole 50, not simply by raising the tent’s
`
`roof. (Ex. 1001, 3:34-37; Ex. 2029, ¶152). Thus, Petitioner’s allegation that “[t]he
`
`function of the center pole [is] to heighten ... the tent covering” which “accomplishes
`
`the goal of the ’040 Patent” is incorrect and should be not the basis of construing
`
`this claim term. (Pet., 33).
`
`Third, Petitioner’s quoted dictionary definition of “stretch” does not refer to
`
`or even suggest heightening. (Pet., 33 (citing Ex. 1016, 4)); Ex. 2029, ¶155). Again,
`
`the District Court agreed. (Ex. 1018, 11 (“Defendants have not cited a definition for
`
`‘stretching’ that requires ‘heightening.’”)).
`
`In short, Petitioner’s proposed construction of “stretching” as “to heighten” is
`
`an attempt to furtively change the patent’s scope by supplanting one well-understood
`
`term—stretching—for an unrelated term—heighten and should be dismissed. (Ex.
`
`
`113265906.6
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`
`
`2029, ¶157).
`
`2.
`
`Plain and Ordinary Meaning
`
`As explained below, whether Petitioner’s various combinations of references
`
`provide “a center pole constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof when a
`
`tent is pitched with the tent frame” is a critical issue. And while Petitioner asserts
`
`that the claims are unpatentable under either party’s proposed District Court
`
`construction of “center pole,” Petitioner makes no such assertion for its proposed
`
`construction of “constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof.” (Pet., 32).
`
`In other words, Petitioner does not allege that the challenged claims would be
`
`unpatentable if its proposed construction of “constructed for stretching and
`
`sustaining a tent’s roof” is rejected.5
`
`Patent Owner agrees with the District Court that the term “constructed for
`
`stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof” need not be construed and should be given
`
`its plain and ordinary meaning. (Ex. 1018, 11, 20; Ex. 2029, Section VI.B.2).
`
`
`5 Petitioner broadly asserts that “as will be explained in connection with the asserted
`
`invalidity ground, the challenged claims are unpatentable under either party’s
`
`constructions.” (Pet., 28). But Patent Owner did not propose a construction for
`
`“constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof” at the District Court, it
`
`merely opposed Petitioner’s incorrect proposal. (Ex. 1011, 8).
`
`
`113265906.6
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`
`
`However, because Petitioner attempts to muddy the waters around the well-
`
`understood term “stretching” and fails to consider the entire context of these claim
`
`terms, in addition to Petitioner’s proposed construction being critical to its
`
`arguments for unpatentability, Patent Owner provides the following analysis.
`
`The ’040 Patent states that “the center pole 50 moves upwardly and sustains
`
`the center of the roof while stretching the roof as shown in FIG. 4.” (Ex. 1001, 3:26-
`
`28). The ’040 Patent also states that “[t]he [] tent frame is integrated with a canvas
`
`or other material” and that “the tent frame stretches and sustains the canvas or other
`
`material and pitches the tent.” (Id., 3:13-14, 20-21). As shown in Figure 4 of the
`
`’040 Patent (below), the roof is stretched (made taut) between the tent frame (e.g.,
`
`the connectors 60 and the side poles 10) and the center pole 50 while the center pole
`
`50 sustains (holds up) the center of the roof, consistent with the ’040 Patent. (Ex.
`
`2029, ¶¶122-24, 159-66). In other words, Petitioner fails to recognize that “a center
`
`pole constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof” must be read in its entire
`
`context, that is “a center pole constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof
`
`when a tent is pitched with the tent frame.” (Id., ¶159).
`
`
`113265906.6
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s own dictionary excerpt confirms that “stretch” means “make or
`
`become taut.” (Ex. 1016, 4).6 And Petitioner’s expert agrees that the center pole 50
`
`cooperates with the tent frame (i.e., the side poles 10) to tension the roof. (Ex. 1003,
`
`¶44 (“Specifically, the tent roof is most often secured to the side poles and is held
`
`up by the center pole and center pole ribs. The center pole specifically heightens the
`
`tent roof to create tension in the fabric which prevents sagging.”) (emphasis added)).
`
`
`6 This definition of “stretch” appears before Petitioner’s quoted definition.
`
`
`113265906.6
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`
`
`Well-understood by a POSITA, tension requires two opposite, balancing
`
`forces. (Ex. 2014, ¶94). As shown in the ’040 Patent and as recited in claim 1, the
`
`center pole 50 stretches the roof in conjunction with the tent frame. (Ex. 2029,
`
`¶¶124, 163). The ’040 Patent additionally describes the tent frame as being
`
`integrated with the roof, indicating that the roof is secured to the tent frame rather
`
`than being merely draped over the tent frame. (Ex. 1001, 3:14-15; Ex. 2029, ¶¶164-
`
`66). In other words, the roof is secured to the tent frame to oppose and balance the
`
`force applied to the roof by the center pole 50. (Ex. 2029, ¶¶124, 160-66). These
`
`forces, acting in concert, stretch (or tension) the roof as recited in claim 1. (Id.).
`
`In fact, claim 1 was amended during prosecution as follows: “a center pole
`
`[used] constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof when [pitching] a tent
`
`is pitched with the tent frame.” (Ex. 1002, 59). This amendment was “to more
`
`particularly point out and distinctly claim the present invention” and was not made
`
`“in view of any prior art.” (Id., 61). Indeed, prior to this amendment, it was unclear
`
`from claim 1 alone how the center pole stretched the tent’s roof since no balancing
`
`force was recited. (Ex. 2029, ¶159). By this amendment, the applicant clarified that
`
`the center pole stretches and sustains the tent’s roof in conjunction with the tent
`
`frame.
`
`
`113265906.6
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`FAILS
`PETITIONER
`OF THE ’040 PATENT
`Petitioner has “the burden of proof ... to prove unpatentable those issued
`
`UNPATENTABILITY
`
`TO
`
`PROVE
`
`claims that were [] challenged in the petition.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`
`829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[T]he burden of persuasion is on the
`
`petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence’ ... and that
`
`burden never shifts to the patentee.” Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National
`
`Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 316(e)).
`
`And “if the fact trier of the issue is left uncertain, the party with the burden loses.”
`
`Id. at 1379.
`
`
`
`Favoring breadth over depth, Petitioner recycles and reuses the same
`
`references in the same deficient combinations coupled with the same conclusory and
`
`factually inaccurate motivations to combine across each of its six Grounds7. As
`
`discussed below, each Ground fails to address all limitations of claim 1, when
`
`properly construed, and relies on conclusory and deficient alleged motivations why
`
`a POSITA would have combined the references in the manner proposed. For these
`
`reasons, Petitioner has not proven unpatentability of the challenged claims.
`
`
`7 Grounds 6 and 7 are identical as to claim 1. (Pet., 79).
`
`
`113265906.6
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`
`
`A. Ground 1: Yang in view of Lynch
`1.
`Translation of Yang
`Patent Owner provides its own translation of Yang (Exhibit 1005) as Exhibit
`
`2030. Michael Fletcher, the translator of Exhibit 2030, specializes in translating
`
`patents and has a Master of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering, rendering
`
`him eminently qualified to translate Yang. (Ex. 2031).
`
`Petitioner’s translation includes a few apparent errors. For example, it
`
`alternately refers to element 8 of Yang as the “roof beam bearing” and “roof bearing
`
`beam shaft.” (Ex. 1004, 7, 10).8 Patent Owner’s translation reveals no such
`
`inconsistency and consistently refers to element 8 as the “roof beam receiver shaft,”
`
`consistent with its function of receiving each of the four roof support bars 7. (Ex.
`
`2030, 11).
`
`Additionally, Petitioner’s translation states that “there is no risk whatsoever
`
`of the smooth sloped roof collapsing, bending, or leaking rain