`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`CIXI CITY LIYUAN AUTO PARTS CO. LTD., TYGER AUTO, INC., AND
`HONG KONG CAR START INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`LAURMARK ENTERPRISES, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`Case IPR2020-01030
`U.S. Patent No. 8,061,758
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case No. IPR2020-01030
`
`Table of Contents
`Table of Contents ................................................................................................ i
`Table of Authorities .......................................................................................... iv
`List of Exhibits .................................................................................................... v
`I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’758 PATENT ......................................................... 2
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 3
`A. “the first lateral frame member including a first interlocking element
`interlocked with a back lateral edge of the first spacer bar and
`with first panel pivotally attached to the first spacer bar” .............. 3
` The claim itself demonstrates that the first interlocking
`element: (i) is part of the lateral frame member; (ii) is
`interlocked with the first spacer bar; and (iii) provides a
`pivotal attachment between the first panel and first spacer
`bar ................................................................................................. 4
` The specification supports Patent Owner’s construction ........ 6
` The prosecution history supports Patent Owner’s
`construction ................................................................................ 10
` Petitioners’ attempt to equate this limitation to the
`specification’s optional “backing bars” is erroneous ............. 12
`IV. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ............................................................................. 15
`A. Ground 1: Stone in View of Thoman Fails to Render the Challenged
`Claims Unpatentable .......................................................................... 15
` Stone Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious Claim 2’s “the
`first lateral frame member including a first interlocking
`element interlocked with a back lateral edge of the first
`spacer bar and with first panel pivotally attached to the first
`spacer bar” ................................................................................. 15
` Thoman Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious Claim 2’s “the
`first lateral frame member including a first interlocking
`
`i
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case No. IPR2020-01030
`
`element interlocked with a back lateral edge of the first
`spacer bar and with first panel pivotally attached to the first
`spacer bar” ................................................................................. 18
` The Combination of Stone and Thoman Does Not Render
`Obvious Claim 2’s “a first interlocking element interlocked
`with a back lateral edge of the first spacer bar and with first
`panel pivotally attached to the first spacer bar” .................... 19
`B. Ground 2: Stone in View of Thoman and Kooiker 296 Fails to Render
`the Challenged Claims Unpatentable ............................................... 20
`C. Ground 3: Stone in View of Thoman, Erlandsson, and Kooiker 296
`Fails to Render the Challenged Claims Unpatentable .................... 21
` Petitioners provide inadequate motivation to combine
`Erlandsson .................................................................................. 22
` Petitioners fail to identify a “lateral frame member” which
`“includ[es]” “a first interlocking element” in their proposed
`combination ................................................................................ 25
` Petitioners’ proposed combination does not disclose or
`render obvious an interlocking element providing pivotal
`attachment .................................................................................. 27
`D. Ground 4: Steffens in View of Keller and Erlandsson Fails to Render
`the Challenged Claims Unpatentable ............................................... 29
` Steffens Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious Claim 2’s “the
`first lateral frame member including a first interlocking
`element interlocked with a back lateral edge of the first
`spacer bar and with first panel pivotally attached to the first
`spacer bar” ................................................................................. 29
` Keller Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious Claim 2’s “the
`first lateral frame member including a first interlocking
`element interlocked with a back lateral edge of the first
`spacer bar and with first panel pivotally attached to the first
`spacer bar” ................................................................................. 30
` Erlandsson Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious Claim 2’s
`“the first lateral frame member including a first interlocking
`element interlocked with a back lateral edge of the first
`spacer bar and with first panel pivotally attached to the first
`spacer bar” ................................................................................. 31
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case No. IPR2020-01030
`
`a. Petitioners provide inadequate motivation to combine
`Erlandsson with Steffens in the manner claimed ........................ 32
`b. Petitioners’ proposed combination does not disclose or render
`obvious an interlocking element providing pivotal attachment. . 34
`V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 36
`Certificate of Service 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) ...................................................... 37
`Certificate of Compliance Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ............................. 38
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case No. IPR2020-01030
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 24
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 27
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 27
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case No. IPR2020-01030
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`2001
`Excerpts of Merriam Webster’s Collegiate
`Dictionary, 11th ed. (2003), including definition
`of “include”
`
`Identifier
`n/a
`
`v
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case No. IPR2020-01030
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, Patent Owner Laurmark
`
`Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a BAK Industries (“Patent Owner” or “BAK”) hereby submits
`
`its Patent Owner Preliminary Response.
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`The Board should deny the present request for inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,061,758 (“the ’758 patent”). In particular, as Petitioners themselves
`
`admit, each of the claims of the ’758 Patent recite “interlocking element” limitations,
`
`which were added by the Patentee in new claims near the end of prosecution. Pet.
`
`at 9-10. These were the very limitations the examiner found to not be disclosed by
`
`the prior art. Ex. 1002 at 274. However, despite the obvious importance of these
`
`limitations, Petitioners’ invalidity theories rely on a plainly incorrect construction of
`
`at least one of those limitations: “the first lateral frame member including a first
`
`interlocking element interlocked with a back lateral edge of the first spacer bar and
`
`with first panel pivotally attached to the first spacer bar.” Ex. 1001, cl. 2.
`
`In particular, Petitioners and their expert incorrectly construe all the
`
`“interlocking element” limitations as merely requiring structures that “may be
`
`interlocking with each other,” i.e. “hav[e] features that engage each other.” Pet. at
`
`11-12. However, this ignores that, in addition to being “interlocked with a … lateral
`
`edge of [a] spacer bar,” the claim also requires that: (1) the “first interlocking
`
`element” be “includ[ed]” in the first lateral frame member attached to the panel; (2)
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case No. IPR2020-01030
`
`“and with the … panel pivotally attached to the … spacer bar.” Indeed, Petitioners’
`
`expert erroneously omits the language “and with” from his recitation of this element
`
`in his declaration. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 40, 84 (pp. 57-59), 147 (pp. 121-122). Contrary to
`
`Petitioners’ arguments, as demonstrated below, the “first interlocking element”
`
`requires a structure which is: (i) part of the lateral frame member; (ii) interlocked
`
`with the spacer bar; and (iii) providing a pivotal attachment between the panel and
`
`the spacer bar.
`
`As demonstrated below, under this correct construction, none of the cited
`
`references disclose or render obvious this limitation. Additionally, one of the
`
`references relied upon as disclosing this limitation—Erlandsson—arises from an
`
`entirely separate field and Petitioner provides no meaningful motivation to combine.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should deny institution of the Petition.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’758 PATENT
`The ’758 Patent is generally directed to a novel cover assembly for a cargo
`
`box of a pick-up truck having panels, spacer bars, and interlocking elements
`
`pivotally connecting the panels to each other, or to specifically sized spacer bars.
`
`Ex. 1001 at Abstract and 3:38-4:5. The claimed arrangement of interlocking
`
`elements, panels, and specifically sized spacer bars permits the panels to fold over
`
`onto each other allowing access to the cargo box. Id. In addition, the claimed
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case No. IPR2020-01030
`
`arrangement provides a rigid cargo cover which is easy to install, resistant to water
`
`penetration, and provides a secure barrier against theft. Id. at 1:39-48.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION1
`A. “the first lateral frame member including a first interlocking element
`interlocked with a back lateral edge of the first spacer bar and with
`first panel pivotally attached to the first spacer bar”
`The term “the first lateral frame member including a first interlocking element
`
`interlocked with a back lateral edge of the first spacer bar and with first panel
`
`pivotally attached to the first spacer bar” appears in claim 2 of the ‘758 Patent.
`
`Accordingly, it is a limitation of each challenged claim, which are limited to claim
`
`2 and its dependent claims 3 and 4. Pet. at 12-14.
`
`In Grounds 1 and 2, Petitioners and their expert equate each of the
`
`“interlocking element” limitations to Stone’s alleged disclosure of “extensions (144)
`
`and notches (146).” Pet. at 19, 31; Ex. 1003 ¶ 84 (pp. 57-59). In Grounds 3 and 4,
`
`Petitioners and their expert equate this limitation to Erlandsson’s alleged disclosure
`
`of “designs for interlocking lateral edges of adjacent spacer/bars.” Pet. at 66; Ex.
`
`1003 ¶ 147 (pp. 121-122). However, in each of the proposed combinations asserted
`
`by the Petitioner, Petitioner merely shows the alleged spacer bar and panel as having
`
`interlocking features: an allegedly interlocking face/extension attached to the alleged
`
`
`1 Patent Owner only addresses the constructions relevant to this Preliminary
`Response. In the event that this Petition is instituted, Patent Owner reserves the right
`to raise additional claim construction issues in its Patent Owner Response.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case No. IPR2020-01030
`
`first spacer bar which interlocks with a corresponding interlocking face/notch
`
`attached to the alleged first panel. Pet. at 31, 66. Thus, Petitioner does not provide
`
`reasoned explanation for: (i) how the alleged “first interlocking element” in each of
`
`the cited references is “includ[ed]” in the alleged “first lateral frame member”; or
`
`(ii) how the interlocking element provides pivotal attachment of the first panel and
`
`to the first spacer bar.
`
`Thus, this Board must determine whether this claim limitation merely requires
`
`that the back lateral edge of the first spacer bar interlock with the first panel, as
`
`Petitioner assumes. However, Patent Owner proposes that this claim limitation
`
`should instead be construed as it is recited. That is, it requires a particular structure
`
`(i.e. a “first interlocking element”) which: (i) is part of the lateral frame member;
`
`(ii) is interlocked with the spacer bar; and (iii) provides a pivotal attachment of the
`
`first panel to the first spacer bar.
`
`
`
`The claim itself demonstrates that the first interlocking element:
`(i) is part of the lateral frame member; (ii) is interlocked with the
`first spacer bar; and (iii) provides a pivotal attachment between the
`first panel and first spacer bar
`Patent Owner submits that the plain language of this limitation supports Patent
`
`Owner’s construction. As to the first aspect of Patent Owner’s construction, the
`
`language “including” plainly indicates that the “interlocking element” is part of the
`
`“lateral frame member.” For example, the Merriam Webster Dictionary defines
`
`“include” as “to take in or comprise as a part of a whole or group” and notes that
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case No. IPR2020-01030
`
`“include suggests the containment of something as a constituent component or
`
`subordinate part of a larger whole.” Ex. 2001 [Merriam Webster’s Collegiate
`
`Dictionary, 11th ed.] at 629-630. Neither Petitioner nor their expert provide any
`
`express analysis of the “including” language of this limitation. Indeed, the Petition
`
`and expert declaration are largely conclusory with respect to application of the
`
`“including” limitation to the prior art. See, e.g., Pet. at 30-31, 66, 86-88; Ex. 1003
`
`¶¶ 48, 72, 84 (pp. 57-58), 114 (pp. 93-95), 135, 147 (pp. 121-122).
`
`As to the second aspect of Patent Owner’s construction, Petitioners do not
`
`appear to dispute that the interlocking element must interlock with the spacer bar.
`
`See Pet. at 11-12. Indeed, claim 2 recites exactly that: “interlocking element
`
`interlocked with a back lateral edge of the first spacer bar.” Ex. 1001, cl. 2.
`
`As to the third aspect of Patent Owner’s construction, the limitation’s
`
`language confirms that the “interlocking element” provides pivotal attachment. In
`
`particular, the language “and with first panel pivotally attached to the first spacer
`
`bar” follows and further modifies the “interlocking element.” It is only separated
`
`from the “interlocking element” by a clause which also modifies the “interlocking
`
`element”: “interlocked with a back lateral edge of the first spacer bar.” Ex. 1001, cl.
`
`2. If the “and with” clause were meant to be a separate limitation, entirely distinct
`
`from the “interlocking element,” then patentee could have readily been drafted in
`
`that manner. For example, it could have been recited in a separate limitation with
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case No. IPR2020-01030
`
`its own semicolon, such as: “wherein said first panel is pivotally attached to the first
`
`spacer bar.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, cl. 2 (“with the second spacer bar having a width
`
`greater than the first spacer bar and less than the width of the second panel . . .”).
`
`The patentee’s intentional choice to recite the “and with” clause immediately
`
`following the “first interlocking element” reflects an intentional choice by the
`
`patentee to require a structure which both interlocks (i.e., with the spacer bar) and
`
`also pivotally attaches (i.e., the spacer bar to the panel).
`
`Accordingly, the language of the claim itself demonstrates that the “first
`
`interlocking element”: (i) is part of the lateral frame member; (ii) is interlocked with
`
`the spacer bar; and (iii) provides a pivotal attachment of the first panel to first spacer
`
`bar.
`
`
`The specification supports Patent Owner’s construction
`Additionally, Patent Owner’s construction is consistent with and supported by
`
`the specification of the ’758 Patent. The specification discloses “panels 102”
`
`connected by “hinge joints 104” which include hinge strips 146 attached to panels
`
`102 “in various ways.” Ex. 1001 at 3:38-4:44. In particular, in describing Figure 6,
`
`the specification recites that “the lateral frame 140 may be provided as a metal
`
`extrusion having a slot 142 between the arms 144, with the slot 142 dimensioned to
`
`slide over and interlock with the fittings 152 . . . on the hinge strip 146.” Ex. 1001
`
`at 4:52-56 (emphasis added). The specification continues, explaining that “[t]he
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case No. IPR2020-01030
`
`fittings 150 and 152 may be spaced apart by a flat or web section 154 of the hinge
`
`strip 146, as shown in FIGS. 6-8.” Id. at 4:57-58. Thus, as shown in the below-
`
`annotated versions of Figures 6-8, the “hinge strip 146” is a structure which: (1) is
`
`part of the lateral frame member, (2) interlocks with the spacer bar, and (3) provides
`
`the pivotal attachment of the frame member to the spacer bar.
`
`Figure 6, annotated above, provides a detailed view of a hinge strip 146 (blue),
`
`lateral [frame] member 140 (red) and panel 102 [122/120] (yellow). The lateral
`
`[frame] member 140 can be “attached to a front or rear edge … of panels 102” and
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case No. IPR2020-01030
`
`the hinge strip 146 is provided with lateral [frame] member 140. Ex. 1001 at 4:40-
`
`63.
`
`
`
`Similarly, Figure 7, annotated above, shows [first/second/third/fourth] lateral
`
`[frame] member 140 (red) including a hinge strip 146 (blue). In particular, in the
`
`example of Figure 7, hinge strip 146 is included with lateral member 140 by arms
`
`144 interlocked with fitting 150. The lateral frame member 140 (red) can be attached
`
`to the [front/back] lateral edge of the [first/second/third] panel 102 as also shown in
`
`Figure 6 above. Hinge strip 146 includes another fitting 152, which Figure 7
`
`illustrates as interlocked with another lateral frame 140 (green), which can be an
`
`integral part of another panel or spacer bar. Ex. 1001 at 4:40-58.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case No. IPR2020-01030
`
`As shown in Figures 6 and 7, “the hinge strip 146 has first and second fittings
`
`or attachment features 150 and 152” for attaching the hinge strip to corresponding
`
`features or arms 144. Ex. 1001 at 4:40-58. In particular, features or arms 144 may
`
`be provided on “front/rear” of panels themselves, or on lateral [frame] member 140
`
`“attached to a front or rear edge of panels,” with “slot 142 between the arms 144
`
`dimensioned to slide over and interlock with the fittings 152 and [150] on the hinge
`
`strip 146.” Id. (emphasis added). As shown in Figures 6 and 7, one end of hinge
`
`strip 146 has T-shaped fitting 150 which is enclosed within the corresponding slot
`
`142 of the arms 144 of lateral frame member 140. Id. The other end of the hinge
`
`strip has T-shaped fitting 152, which can interlock with corresponding arms of
`
`another lateral frame 140 (green), which can be an integral part of another panel or
`
`spacer bar. Id.; id. at Fig. 6. Accordingly, the disclosed embodiments include one
`
`end of the hinge strip fastened and enclosed within the arms of the lateral frame
`
`member on the lateral edge of a frame member (i.e. that it is part of the lateral frame
`
`member), and the other end of the hinge strip is interlocked with arms that are on the
`
`lateral edge of another panel/spacer bar.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case No. IPR2020-01030
`
`‘758 Patent, Fig. 8 (annotated)
`Similarly, Figure 8, as annotated above, shows a cross-section of the hinge
`
`
`
`strip 146 (blue), lateral [frame] member 140 (red), panel 102 [122/120] (yellow),
`
`and unlabeled spacer/panel (orange). Notably, the hinge strip 146 is the only
`
`structure depicted in these figures which “interlocks” with the lateral edges of panels
`
`or spacer bars. Moreover, as shown in Figure 8, the hinge strip is what permits the
`
`pivotal attachment between the panel and spacer bar. See also Ex. 1001, Abstract
`
`(“A cover has a first resilient hinge strip connecting a first panel to a second panel
`
`and allowing the first panel to pivot relative to the second panel.”).
`
`
`The prosecution history supports Patent Owner’s construction
`Finally, the prosecution history also supports Patent Owner’s construction.
`
`During prosecution, an “interlocking element” first appeared in the claims in the
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case No. IPR2020-01030
`
`patentee’s December 8, 2010 amendment and office action response. Ex. 1002, 151-
`
`157, 167. In the subsequent office action, the examiner indicated that claim 19 was
`
`allowable if rewritten into independent form. Ex. 1002, 174. In response, the
`
`patentee added two new claims, prosecution claims 22 and 23, which eventually
`
`issued respectively as claims 1 and 2 of the ’758 Patent. Ex. 1002 at 199-201.
`
`Notably, when prosecution claim 23 was added (corresponding to claim 2 as
`
`issued), the patentee stated that “[n]ewly added independent claim 23 is supported
`
`at 0026 and Figs. 7-13 and is believed to be allowable without further comment for
`
`the same reasons that claim 19 is allowable.” Ex. 1002 at 187 (emphasis added).
`
`The application’s specification paragraph 26 corresponds to column 3, lines 38-58
`
`of the ‘758 Patent as issued. Ex. 1002 at 8-9; Ex. 1001 at 3:38-58. Notably, that
`
`paragraph prominently features the “hinge joint 104,” reciting that the “sections or
`
`panels 102 [are] connected by hinge joints 104,” that “[t]he hinge joints 104 allow
`
`the panels 102 to fold onto each other,” that “[t]he second and third hinge joints
`
`104B and 104C are similar but include a spacer bar 110 and 112,” and that “[t]he
`
`joints 104 may optionally be made without any screws or other fasteners requiring
`
`through holes.” Id. “Hinge strip 146” is the integral part of “hinge joint 104” in the
`
`preferred embodiment: the movement of the hinge strip provides the hinge joint’s
`
`pivotal attachment between the panels. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 4:41-42 (“hinge joints
`
`104 which include a hinge strip 146”), Fig. 6 at 104.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case No. IPR2020-01030
`
`Similarly, each of Figures 7-13 prominently display the hinge strip. Indeed,
`
`as discussed above, Figures 6-8 show the hinge strip as part of a lateral member and
`
`interlocked with the lateral edge of an adjoining panel/spacer bar.2 Thus, the
`
`prosecution history further supports Patent Owner’s construction requiring the first
`
`interlocking element: (i) be part of the lateral frame member; (ii) be interlocked with
`
`the spacer bar; and (iii) provide a pivotal attachment of the first panel to the first
`
`spacer bar.
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ attempt to equate this limitation to the specification’s
`optional “backing bars” is erroneous
`Apparently recognizing deficiencies in the cited prior art and their proposed
`
`claim construction, Petitioners attempt to argue that their claim construction is
`
`supported by the specification’s disclosure of “backing bars 160 and 162” which
`
`“may be interlocking with each other.” Pet. at 11 (citing Ex. 1001 at 5:1-2).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioners and their expert conclude that this limitation merely
`
`requires “features that engage each other,” ignoring the specific language of “the
`
`first lateral frame member including a first interlocking element interlocked with …
`
`and with [the] first panel pivotally attached to the first spacer bar.” Pet. at 11-12;
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 25; Ex. 1001, cl. 2. Contrary to Petitioners’ arguments, the “backing
`
`bars” of the specification do not correspond to this claim limitation.
`
`
`2 By contrast, Figure 7 wholly omits backing bars 160, 162. Ex. 1001, Fig. 7.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case No. IPR2020-01030
`
`Indeed, the specification’s backing bars 160, 162 are clearly inconsistent with
`
`this limitation in a number of respects. This claim limitation requires “a first
`
`interlocking element interlocked with a back lateral edge of the first spacer bar.” Ex.
`
`1001, cl. 2. However, the specification only describes the backing bars as
`
`“interlocking with each other,” rather than interlocking with the lateral frame
`
`member or a spacer bars, as recited in the limitation. Ex. 1001 at 5:1-2. Indeed,
`
`instead of connecting to a panel/spacer bar via any type of “interlocking,” the
`
`backing bars are attached to the panel/spacer bar “using fasteners 164.” Ex. 1001
`
`at 4:66-5:6 (emphasis added). Additionally, as shown in Figure 8, the backing bars
`
`do not provide any pivotal attachment of the panel to the spacer bar, but rather move
`
`with the movement of the hinge strip 146.
`
`Moreover, a PHOSITA would recognize the specification’s “backing bars”
`
`are only “interlock[ing]” with each other when the cover is fully unfolded. Indeed,
`
`as shown by Figure 8, when the cover is opened, the panels lift toward each other
`
`(above the hinge joint), causing the backing bars (below the hinge joint) to disengage
`
`from each other. Ex. 1001 at Fig. 8; see also id. at 4:58-62 (describing the “backing
`
`bars” as having an effect when “the joint 104 [is] in the closed (unfolded) position.”).
`
`However, notably, claim 2 does not recite that the cover is in a “folded” or
`
`“unfolded” position. By contrast, claims 1 and 3 expressly recites certain limitations
`
`apply to “when the cover is in an unfolded position.” Ex. 1001, cls. 1, 3; id. at pp.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case No. IPR2020-01030
`
`20-21 (corrected claim 1). This demonstrates that, if a particular limitation required
`
`the cover to be in a particular position to apply, the patentee knew to draft the claim
`
`to recite the cover’s position. Thus, the fact that claim 2 does not recite that the
`
`cover is in a particular position anywhere in the claim reflects an intentional choice
`
`by the patentee, and suggests that the “first interlocking element” does not require
`
`the cover to be in a particular position to be interlocked with the spacer bar. Because
`
`the “backing bars” are only “interlocked” with anything when the cover is closed,
`
`claim 2’s silence as to a particular position for the cover further demonstrates that
`
`the “backing bars” do not correspond to the recited “first interlocking element …
`
`interlocked with … the first spacer bar”
`
`Finally, the prosecution history also demonstrates that the backing bars do not
`
`correspond to this limitation. In particular, as noted above, when prosecution claim
`
`23 (issued claim 2) was added, the patentee specifically pointed to paragraph 26 of
`
`the specification as supporting the limitation. Ex. 1002 at 187. However, “the
`
`“backing bars” are not mentioned at all in that paragraph. Ex. 1002 at 8-9; Ex. 1001
`
`at 3:38-58. Rather, the “backing bars” are mentioned in paragraphs 30-31 of the
`
`application’s specification. Ex. 10012 at 10-11.
`
`Thus, as shown, the ’758 Patent’s “backing bars” do not correspond to the
`
`recited “first interlocking element.” Accordingly, the “backing bars” do not justify
`
`Petitioners’ attempt to rewrite this limitation as merely requiring the panel and
`
`14
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case No. IPR2020-01030
`
`spacer bar to engage when a cover is in the unfolded position. Thus, the Board
`
`should adopt Patent Owner’s construction, and requires the “first interlocking
`
`element” to be a particular structure which: (i) is part of the lateral frame member;
`
`(ii) is interlocked with the spacer bar; and (iii) provides a pivotal attachment of the
`
`first panel to the first spacer bar.
`
`IV. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE3
`A. Ground 1: Stone in View of Thoman Fails to Render the Challenged
`Claims Unpatentable
`Stone Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious Claim 2’s “the first
`lateral frame member including a first interlocking element
`interlocked with a back lateral edge of the first spacer bar and with
`first panel pivotally attached to the first spacer bar”
`Applying an erroneous claim construction, Petitioners incorrectly assert that
`
`
`
`Stone discloses the claimed “first interlocking element interlocked with a back
`
`lateral edge of the first spacer bar and with first panel pivotally attached to the first
`
`spacer bar.” Stone, however, fails to explicitly or inferentially disclose this
`
`limitation.
`
`Stone discloses a cover for a vehicle box. Ex. 1005 at Abstract. Like art cited
`
`during prosecution, the cover of Stone includes foldable panels interconnected in an
`
`
`3 In this preliminary response, Patent Owner only presents arguments against
`institution of this Petition. In the event that this Petition is instituted, Patent Owner
`reserves the right to raise additional or different arguments in its Patent Owner
`Response.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case No. IPR2020-01030
`
`edge-to-edge relationship. Id. at Figs. 4-9. Stone’s Figure 4, illustrates the cover 62
`
`and panels 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126 in an unfolded state. Petitioners assert that
`
`the “first interlocking element” is disclosed by “extensions (144) and notches (146).”
`
`Pet at 24. In particular, Petitioners provide the below annotations of Stone’s Figures
`
`7 and 8 to demonstrate their theory.
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Annotated Versions of Stone’s Figures 7 and 8
`Pet. at 19-20 (citing Ex. 1005, Figs. 7, 8). Under the correct claim construction of
`
`this limitation, however, Petitioners’ theory fails for two distinct reasons: Neither
`
`Stone’s notch, nor Stone’s extension: (1) are part of a lateral frame member attached
`
`to the front lateral edge of the first panel; or (2) provide pivotal attachment between
`
`a panel and a spacer bar.
`
`Petitioners identify Stone’s “second bars 149” as allegedly satisfying the “first
`
`lateral frame member attached to the front lateral edge of the first panel.” Pet. at 27-
`
`16
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case No. IPR2020-01030
`
`33; Ex. 1003 ¶ 84 (pp. 53-54, 58); Ex. 1005, Fig. 3 at 149. However, neither Stone’s
`
`“extension 144” or “notch 146” are in any sense part of or otherwise “included” in
`
`Stone’s “second bars 149,” as claim 2 requires. Indeed, Stone describes that
`
`“extension 144” is formed from an “outwardly extending . . . end[]” of “bar 142,”
`
`which extends along the sides of each of Stone’s panels. Ex. 1005 at 6:30-44, Fig.
`
`4 at 142. Similarly, Stone’s “notch 146” is a void “extending inwardly” to the next
`
`panel by shortening the opposite end of bar 142 in the next panel an appropriate
`
`amount to receive the “extension 144.” Ex. 1005 at 6:26-54, Figs. 6, 7. Thus,
`
`Stone’s “extension 144” and “notch 146” are part of a longitudinal structure
`
`(Stone’s bar 142), not a lateral member attached to the lateral edge of the first panel,
`
`as required by the claim. Moreover, Stone does not describe or depict “second bar
`
`149” as having any structural relationship with “extension 144” or “notch 146.” See
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 5. At most, “extension 144” is simply adjacent to the end of second
`
`bar 149. Id., Fig. 6. Moreover, neither Petitioner nor their expert provide any
`
`reasoned analysis for how Stone’s “second bars 149” “include” Stone’s “extension
`
`144” and/or “notch 146.” Pet. at 27-33; Ex. 1003 ¶ 84 (pp. 53-54, 58).
`
`Additionally, Petitioners argument as to Stone also fail because neither Stone
`
`“extension 144” nor Stone’s “notch 146” provide for pivotal attachment of Stone’s
`
`panels to any alleged panels or spacer bars. Indeed, Stone specifically discloses that
`
`its separate “hinge assembly 160” is what provides the “pivotal axis” between the
`
`17
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case No. IPR2020-01030
`
`edges of Stone’s panels. Ex. 1005 at 7:36-50, 12:6-43. Stone’s “hinge assembly
`
`160” is disposed on the top of Stone’s cover and is th