`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`WALMART INC.; Z-SHADE CO., LTD.;
`COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION;
`LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC; and
`SHELTERLOGIC CORP.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CARAVAN CANOPY INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01026
`Patent No. 5,944,040
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S INITIAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF REGARDING
`“CONSTRUCTED FOR”
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`The claims of the ’040 patent are directed to a “collapsible tent frame.” The
`
`center pole is an element of the tent frame that the claims state is “constructed for”
`
`stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof when a tent is placed over the claimed frame.
`
`“Constructed for,” under the ordinary understanding of the term, limits the
`
`structure of the center pole. But this term cannot require a limitation on the
`
`structure of any other component of the tent frame, nor can it be a functional
`
`limitation. Moreover, it cannot require any specific configuration of a tent roof,
`
`which is not a claimed component of the tent frame. The intrinsic evidence shows
`
`that the specific structure of the center pole constructed for stretching and
`
`sustaining is a pole that extends above the apex of the center pole ribs, as opposed
`
`to, for example, extending downward into the interior of the tent frame. Nothing
`
`more is required of the center pole or the tent frame to satisfy the claim language.
`
`In any event, the Board need not determine the precise construction of
`
`“constructed for” because the centers poles of Lynch, the AAPA, and Berg are
`
`each specifically designed to stretch and sustain a tent’s roof, capable of doing so,
`
`and are actually shown to do so in the prior art.
`
`II.
`
`“Constructed For” Is a Structural, Not Functional, Limitation
`“Constructed for” “should be construed to mean ‘made to,’ ‘designed to,’ or
`
`‘configured to’ when the specification discloses structural features that render the
`
`1
`
`
`
`claimed apparatus suitable for a claimed function.” Presidio Components Inc. v.
`
`AVX Corp., 825 F. App’x 909, 915 (Fed. Cir. 2020); In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d
`
`1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (noting that the written description makes clear
`
`whether a term “is designed or constructed to be used” or “capable of”); In re Man
`
`Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same).
`
`Here, the specification discloses the specific structural feature that makes a
`
`center pole “constructed for” stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof: the center pole
`
`is a pole that extends vertically above the apex of the center pole ribs. 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.”); Fig. 3, 2:39-41 (describing Fig. 3 as the
`
`preferred embodiment); see also Ex. 1024, 58:2-6 (Mr.
`
`Rake admitting the “center pole extends above the center pole ribs”). As shown in
`
`Fig. 4, by extending vertically above the ribs, the center pole stretches and sustains
`
`the tent’s roof.1 By contrast, a center pole that extends downward to the ground
`
`(such as that contemplated in the discussion of the prior art in Yang (Ex. 1004, 4))
`
`would serve as a support column for the frame but would not stretch and sustain
`
`
`1 The center pole in prior art Fig. 2 likewise extends vertically to stretch and
`
`sustain the tent’s roof.
`
`2
`
`
`
`the roof. Therefore, the structural requirement for the claimed center pole
`
`“constructed for” stretching and sustaining a roof is a pole that extends above the
`
`apex of the center pole ribs. Nothing more is required.
`
`There does not seem to be a dispute between the parties that “constructed
`
`for” means “configured to,” and thus “made to” or “designed for.” See, e.g., POR,
`
`20 (“constructed to stretch the roof with the tent frame”); Reply, 31 (“specifically
`
`constructed to stretch and sustain the tent’s roof”). Caravan, however, has muddled
`
`the issue on the “constructed for” language as its expert, Mr. Rake, gave multiple
`
`conflicting constructions in his report and during his deposition. Compare Ex.
`
`1024, 137:15-138:6 (“Q: Okay. So you don’t believe it would impart to a
`
`[POSITA] any particular structural meaning? A: No. I think it imparts to a
`
`[POSITA] a function.”) with Ex. 2029, ¶140 (describing the center pole as “the
`
`central determinant, the pole bearing the most weight of the tent structure”).
`
`Caravan’s argument that “center pole” has no structure and is functionally defined
`
`should be rejected because it departs from the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`“center pole” and improperly transforms the term into a means-plus-function term.
`
`Pet., 31-32. Moreover, a similar construction was already rejected by the district
`
`court. Ex. 1018, 7; POR, 6 (agreeing with the District Court).
`
`Instead, the crux of the dispute is whether “configured for” requires a tent
`
`frame to actually perform the function of “stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof
`
`3
`
`
`
`when the tent is pitched with a tent frame” to be within the scope of the claims, or
`
`whether a tent frame alone can meet this limitation. It should be undisputed that a
`
`claim specifically directed to “a tent frame” can be met by the structure of a tent
`
`frame alone—certainly, one could directly infringe these claims by selling only a
`
`tent frame, as opposed to a tent frame and roof. Indeed, Figure 3 of the ’040 patent
`
`is the “preferred embodiment of the present invention,” and it does not have a
`
`roof. Ex. 1001, 2:39-41. The specification also specifically distinguishes between a
`
`tent, which is a “tent frame [] integrated with a canvas or other material,” and the
`
`tent frame alone. Ex. 1001, 3:13-14. Thus, while the claimed tent frame is
`
`constructed for interacting with a roof when a tent is pitched with the frame, the
`
`roof is not recited as an element of the claimed “collapsible tent frame.” Therefore,
`
`the scope of the claims cannot, as Caravan seems to allege, depend on the
`
`configuration of the tent roof, or on how a user actually installs a tent roof.
`
`Moreover, the “constructed for” limitation modifies only the “center pole”
`
`claim element. Thus, a center pole “constructed for” stretching and sustaining a
`
`tent’s roof cannot be understood to require an unclaimed and undescribed
`
`structural component on any other element of a tent frame, such as Velcro or some
`
`other connection on the side pole. Not only is it “improper to read a limitation from
`
`the specification into the claims,” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d
`
`898, 904 (Fed. Cir. 2004), but Caravan’s expert Mr. Rake admits there is nothing
`
`4
`
`
`
`in the specification describing attachment to the side poles. Ex. 1024, 44:12-45:6,
`
`Reply, 13. The Board should not permit Caravan to read a requirement into the
`
`claims that is not even described in the specification.
`
`III. Under Presidio, the Board Need Not Construe the Term
`
`The Board need not construe the “constructed for” limitation if the claims
`
`are invalid under either party’s construction. See Presidio Components, Inc. v. AVX
`
`Corp., 825 F. App’x 909, 915 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (finding no error in the Board
`
`declining to construe “the term ‘adapted to be’…after concluding that the claims
`
`are invalid under either construction”); see also Agarwal v. TopGolf Int'l, Inc., 813
`
`F. App’x 476, 479 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`The center poles of Lynch, the AAPA, and Berg are each specifically
`
`designed to stretch and sustain a tent’s roof under either party’s construction, and
`
`are thus also are capable of doing so. E.g., Pet., 38-40, 48-49, 51-53. Reply, 17, 23-
`
`24, 28-29. Specifically, the center poles of Lynch, the AAPA, and Berg possess the
`
`structural requirements of a center pole that sticks up above the apex of the center
`
`pole ribs. And each of those center poles is depicted as stretching and sustaining a
`
`tent’s roof, even under Patent Owner’s definition of “stretching” as “tensioning.”
`
`First, as was admittedly “well known to those skilled in the art,” a tent by
`
`definition “is a collapsible shelter of canvas or other material stretched over and
`
`sustained by a frame.” Ex. 1001, 1:12-15. The AAPA (Ex. 1001, Fig. 2) also shows
`
`5
`
`
`
`the same tensioning with a center pole that extends up, just as in Fig. 4 (id., Fig. 4).
`
`Moreover, Caravan’s expert Mr. Rake admitted that “the design [of the invention]
`
`was really not about putting the tent above the center pole ribs.” Ex. 1024, 85:5-11.
`
`That’s precisely because the ’040 patent admits that center poles constructed for
`
`stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof were well-known. Ex. 1001, 1:12-15.
`
`Second, the purpose of Lynch’s center pole is “to maintain the canopy
`
`covering in a taut manner at all times.” Ex. 1007, 2:39-42. Lynch discloses a center
`
`pole that sticks above the apex of the center pole ribs and has the express purpose
`
`of stretching and sustaining the tent’s roof. Reply, 17; Pet. 38-40. Finally, Berg
`
`discloses a center pole that slants the roof, and is specifically depicted as making
`
`the roof taut. Reply, 28-29; Pet., 51-53. Thus, both Yang and Berg also teach a
`
`center pole specifically made to stretch and sustain a tent’s roof.
`
`As in Presidio, the Board can decline to construe the term “constructed for”
`
`because the prior art satisfies the requirements of the ’040 patent claims, regardless
`
`of how “constructed for”—and the entire center pole limitation—is construed.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth herein, the Board should either (1) construe
`
`“constructed for” as “made to,” “designed to,” or “configured to” or (2) decline to
`
`construe “constructed for” because the prior art meets the claim limitation under
`
`either construction.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Dated: September 28, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ David A. Reed /
`David A. Reed
`Reg. No. 61,226
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on the date below a copy of the
`
`foregoing PETITIONER’S INITIAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`REGARDING “CONSTRUCTED FOR” was served electronically via e-mail
`
`upon the following:
`
`Kyle W. Kellar
`KKellar@lrrc.com
`
`Jason C. Martone
`JMartone@lrrc.com
`
`Sami I. Schilly
`SSchilly@lrrc.com
`
`
`
`Dated: September 28, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ David A. Reed /
`David A. Reed
`Reg. No. 61,226
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
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
