`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`YITA LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MACNEIL IP LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01138
`Patent No. 8,382,186
`____________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,382,186
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND IN THE ART ...................................................................... 2
`A.
`Thermoplastics and thermoforming were used to manufacture prior-
`art floor trays. ........................................................................................ 2
`1.
`Advantages of Thermoforming and Thermoplastics .................. 2
`2.
`Impact of Non-Uniform Thinning During Thermoforming ....... 4
`3.
`Thermoplastic Floor Trays of the Prior Art ................................ 6
`Prior art floor trays closely conformed to vehicle sidewalls. ................ 8
`B.
`Prior art floor mats had a reservoir for collecting liquid.....................14
`C.
`D. Hollow baffles to elevate feet above water collected in a reservoir
`were not new. ......................................................................................16
`III. THE ’186 patent ............................................................................................19
`A.
`Problems Allegedly Addressed by the ’186 Patent .............................20
`B.
`’186 Patent Prosecution History ..........................................................20
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...........................................25
`V.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................26
`A.
`“thicknesses . . . being substantially uniform throughout the tray” ....27
`VI. The ’186 patent is not entitled to a priority date of any of its parent
`applications’ filing dates. ...............................................................................29
`VII. SUMMARY OF GROUNDS ........................................................................36
`A.
`Prior Art Applied .................................................................................36
`B.
`Grounds ...............................................................................................36
`VIII. Claims 1-7 of the ’186 patent are unpatentable under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
`103. ................................................................................................................37
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-7 would have been obvious over MacNeil. ........37
`1.
`Independent claim 1 ..................................................................37
`a.
`Preamble: A vehicle floor tray thermoformed from a
`sheet of thermoplastic polymeric material of substantially
`uniform thickness ............................................................37
`Element 1.a: a central panel substantially conforming to
`a floor of a vehicle foot well ...........................................40
`Element 1.b: the central panel of the floor tray having at
`least one longitudinally disposed lateral side and at least
`one transversely disposed lateral side ............................42
`Element 1.c: a first panel integrally formed with the
`central panel of the floor tray, upwardly extending from
`the transversely disposed lateral side of the central panel
`of the floor tray, and closely conforming to a first foot
`well wall ..........................................................................45
`Element 1.d: the first panel of the floor tray joined to the
`central panel of the floor tray by a curved transition ....48
`Element 1.e: a second panel integrally formed with the
`central panel of the floor tray and the first panel,
`upwardly extending from the longitudinally disposed
`lateral side of the central panel of the floor tray, and
`closely conforming to a second foot well wall ...............52
`Element 1.f: the second panel of the floor tray joined to
`the central panel of the floor tray and to the first panel of
`the floor tray by curved transitions ................................56
`Element 1.g: a reservoir disposed in the central panel of
`the floor tray ...................................................................61
`Element 1.h: a plurality of upstanding, hollow, elongate
`baffles disposed in the reservoir .....................................62
`Element 1.i: each of the baffles having at least two ends
`remote from each other ...................................................64
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`m.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`Element 1.j: the central panel, the first panel, the second
`panel, the reservoir and the baffles each having a
`thickness from a point on the upper surface to a closest
`point on the bottom surface thereof, said thicknesses, as a
`result of the tray being thermoformed from the sheet of
`thermoplastic polymeric material of substantially
`uniform thickness, being substantially uniform
`throughout the tray .........................................................67
`Element 1.k: the baffles each having a width, in any
`horizontal direction, of more than two times its thickness
` ........................................................................................70
`Element 1.l: the baffles adapted to elevate the shoe or
`foot of the occupant above fluid collected in the
`reservoir, and further adapted to impede lateral
`movement, induced by a change in vehicle speed or
`direction, of fluid collected in the reservoir ...................72
`Element 1.m: any portion of the reservoir connected to a
`remote portion of the reservoir by a path formed around
`ends of the baffles ...........................................................72
`A POSA would have been motivated to achieve the
`claimed uniform thickness. .............................................75
`A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of
`success. ...........................................................................77
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................79
`2.
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................82
`3.
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................86
`4.
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................88
`5.
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................90
`6.
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................91
`7.
`Objective indicia do not support patentability. ...................................92
`
`n.
`
`o.
`
`p.
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`IX. mandatory notices ..........................................................................................93
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest ........................................................................93
`B.
`Related Matters ....................................................................................93
`C.
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information .........................93
`X. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ......................................................................95
`XI. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH CLAIM
`CHALLENGED ............................................................................................95
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`
`1002
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`1017
`1018
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186 to MacNeil et al., issued February 26,
`2013 (“’186 Patent”)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186 (“’186 Patent File
`History”)
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,444,748 to MacNeil, issued November 4, 2008
`(“MacNeil”)
`French Patent Application Pre-Grant Publication No. 2547252 to
`Rabbe, published December 14, 1984, with attached certified
`English-language translation (“Rabbe”)
`U.S. Patent Application Pre–Grant Publication No.
`2002/0045029 A1 to Yung, published April 18, 2002 (“Yung”)
`Gruenwald, G., Thermoforming: A Plastics Processing Guide,
`CRC Press, 2nd Edition, 1998 (“Gruenwald”)
`Throne, J., Technology of Thermoforming, Hanser, 1996
`(“Throne I”)
`Throne, J., Understanding Thermoforming, Hanser, 2nd Edition,
`2008 (“Throne II”)
`U.S. Patent No. 2,057,873 to Atwood, issued October 20, 1936
`(“Atwood”)
`U.S. Patent No. 2,657,948 to Sturtevant, issued November 3,
`1953 (“Sturtevant”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,793,872 to Buss, issued September 21, 2004
`(“Buss”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,361,099 to McIntosh, issued March 26, 2002
`(“McIntosh”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,568,581 to Peoples, issued February 4, 1986
`(“Peoples”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,298,319 to Donahue, issued March 29, 1994
`(“Donahue”)
`DOW HDPE DGDA-5004 NT 7 Data Sheet, published October
`10, 2003
`Black Armor Web Advertisement
`Husky Liner Advertisement, August 24, 2000
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`1029
`1030
`1031
`1032
`1033
`1034
`1035
`1036
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 4,420,180 to Dupont et al., issued December 13,
`1983 (“Dupont”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,280,729 to Morawski, issued July 28, 1981
`(“Morawski”)
`European Patent Application Publication No. 0379630 to
`Sagona, published August 1, 1990 (“Sagona”)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,267,459 (“’459 Prosecution
`History”)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,390,912 to Stata, issued July 2, 1968 (“Stata”)
`German Patent Application Publication No. 4000877 to
`Weitbrecht et al., published July 18, 1991
`U.S. Patent No. 6,027,782 to Sherman, issued February 22, 2000
`Japanese Patent Application No. H11-268570 to Suzuki,
`published October 5, 1999, with attached certified English-
`language translation (“Suzuki”)
`Word Comparison of the ’703 Application as filed to the ’899
`Application as filed
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186 to MacNeil et al., issued February 26,
`2013 (“’186 Patent”)
`Plastic Extrusion Tolerance Guide
`Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition,
`2003
`Oxford Compact English Dictionary, First Edition, 2000
`Curriculum Vitae of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D. (“Koch CV”)
`Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis, Ph.D. (“Hall-Ellis Decl.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,910,995 to MacNeil et al. (“’995 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,058,618 to Hemmelgarn et al.
`(“Hemmelgarn”)
`Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1961
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`INTRODUCTION
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186 (“the ’186 patent”) relates to vehicle floor trays
`
`that protect the vehicle interior (e.g., carpeting) from mud, dirt, or water brought
`
`by occupants into the vehicle. These vehicle floor trays were often made from
`
`polymers using a thermoforming process.
`
`Such vehicle floor trays were well-known and the challenged claims recite
`
`nothing new. Instead, the claims recite merely prior art features relating to
`
`conformity of the vehicle floor tray to the underlying vehicle foot well, curved
`
`transitions between panels of the vehicle floor tray, reservoir and baffle features,
`
`and having a substantially uniform floor tray thickness. But these features were all
`
`disclosed in the prior art precisely for their entirely predictable function in a
`
`vehicle floor tray.
`
`The ’186 patent claims priority to several earlier-filed applications.
`
`However, as described in detail below, the ’186 patent claims recite a feature that
`
`was not disclosed explicitly or inherently in those earlier-filed applications.
`
`Accordingly, the ’186 patent is only entitled to its own August 27, 2012 filing date.
`
`Moreover, a continuation-in-part application of the ’186 patent’s original parent
`
`application issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,444,748 (“MacNeil”) on November 4,
`
`2008, more than one year before the ’186 patent’s August 27, 2012 effective filing
`
`date. Thus, MacNeil is prior art to the ’186 patent.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`
`
`MacNeil disclosed every feature claimed in the ’186 patent. Accordingly, as
`
`described in detail below, the challenged claims would have been obvious over
`
`MacNeil. Petitioner Yita LLC (“Petitioner” or “Yita”) has also submitted an
`
`accompanying Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D., a technical expert with more
`
`than 45 years of experience relating to plastics technology and the design and
`
`manufacture of plastic and elastomer products. EX1003, ¶¶4-14. Yita requests that
`
`the Board institute trial and cancel claims 1-7 of the ’186 patent as obvious.
`
`II. BACKGROUND IN THE ART
`The challenged claims recite features that have long-been a part of the
`
`vehicle floor tray prior art. Indeed, removable, thermoformed rubberized or plastic
`
`floor mats have been a well-known part of vehicle interiors for more than fifty
`
`years. EX1003, ¶31; EX1010; EX1011. Generations of drivers have recognized the
`
`need for such articles in order to protect or restore the interior of a vehicle at or
`
`around the feet of the driver, in an area known as the foot well. EX1003, ¶31.
`
`A. Thermoplastics and thermoforming were used to manufacture
`prior-art floor trays.
`1. Advantages of Thermoforming and Thermoplastics
`Thermoforming came into existence approximately 100 years ago as a
`
`manufacturing process where a plastic sheet is heated to a pliable forming
`
`temperature, formed to a specific shape in a mold, and trimmed to create a usable
`
`product. EX1003, ¶32; EX1008, 0019. The plastic sheet is heated to a temperature
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`
`permitting it to be stretched into or onto a mold and cooled to a finished shape.
`
`EX1003, ¶32; EX1008, 0019.
`
`One attractive aspect of thermoforming is the versatility and relative low
`
`cost of the molds. Thermoforming molds can be made from wood, plaster, or
`
`metal. EX1003, ¶33; EX1007, 54. The relatively low mold-cost makes
`
`thermoforming particularly suitable for vehicle floor trays where several molds (or
`
`sets of molds) must be made to fit vehicle foot wells of different makes, models,
`
`and years. EX1003, ¶¶34-35.
`
`Additionally, thermoplastics such as polyethylene (PE) or poly vinyl
`
`chloride (PVC) are relatively inexpensive “commodity resins,” meaning they are
`
`produced in high volumes for a wide variety of applications. EX1003, ¶52;
`
`EX1007, 135; EX1008, 0260. Accordingly, thermoplastics like PE are relatively
`
`inexpensive but still capable of providing the necessary structural rigidity and
`
`durability to serve as a vehicle floor mat. EX1003, ¶52. These materials also can be
`
`readily formed into appropriate shapes to cover the floor and sidewalls of a vehicle
`
`foot well. Id. Additionally, at ambient temperatures, thermoplastics do not need to
`
`be very thick to hold their shape and provide a sufficient level of resistance to
`
`abrasions and punctures. Id. This is particularly useful for vehicle floor trays,
`
`where the goal is to cover and protect the vehicle foot well without sacrificing
`
`space or adding extra weight. Id.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`
`
`2. Impact of Non-Uniform Thinning During Thermoforming
`Thermoforming involves applying heat to a flat sheet of thermoplastic and
`
`subsequently applying that flat sheet to a mold. Therefore, the process stretches the
`
`thermoplastic sheet as the sheet is draped on or pressed in to the mold surface.
`
`EX1003, ¶¶36-38. Accordingly, the surface area of the thermoformed product is
`
`greater than the surface area of the original sheet. Id.; EX1007, 35. The increased
`
`surface area results from reducing the thickness of the starting sheet. EX1008,
`
`05251; see also EX1007, 35.
`
`Thermoformed parts have substantially variable wall thicknesses depending
`
`on the stretching that occurred locally to the area in question. EX1003, ¶¶39-40. As
`
`POSAs appreciated, “[b]ecause thermoforming is a differential stretching process,
`
`the product wall thickness is non-uniform, as shown in schematic in Fig. 1.2.”
`
`EX1009, 0022.
`
`
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise indicated, all emphasis has been added.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`
`
`EX1009, FIG. 1.2.
`
`Localized, non-uniform thinning that occurs during thermoforming can
`
`create significant areas of mechanical weakness in the final thermoformed part.
`
`EX1003, ¶¶41-44; EX1008, 0477. Thus, failing to plan for non-uniform thinning
`
`during the thermoforming process can be a serious flaw in part design. EX1003,
`
`¶42. “Safety factors and sources of inherent product weakness must always be
`
`considered when designing for critical applications.” EX1009, 0042. “[T]he
`
`thinnest section of the part is the weakest under load … This is true whether the
`
`part is a thin-walled deli container or a heavy-gauge spa.” EX1008, 0477.
`
`The prior art recognized several techniques to control or limit the thinning
`
`that occurs during thermoforming and achieve a thermoformed part having
`
`substantially uniform wall thicknesses. EX1003, ¶¶45-49. For example, common
`
`prior art methods for controlling or limiting thinning during thermoforming include
`
`but are not limited to (i) bubble or billow prestretching, (ii) plug assisting, and (iii)
`
`zonal heating of the surface. EX1003, ¶¶46-49; EX1008, 0037-0038, 0094-0096,
`
`0178; EX1007, 59-60, 159-182. “In this process the wall thickness is completely
`
`controlled. The part’s cross sections can be made fully uniform throughout or
`
`strengthened in any area.” EX1007, 167.
`
`Localized thinning during thermoforming was not universally detrimental.
`
`EX1003, ¶¶50-51. Indeed, the prior art identifies applications where non-uniform
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`
`thinning was desirable. Id. For example, non-uniform thinning at the edges of a
`
`thermoformed part can facilitate trimming. EX1012, 3:67-4:8, FIG. 5.
`
`EX1012, FIG. 5.
`Food packaging is another example where non-uniform thinning was known
`
`
`
`to be desirable. EX1003, ¶51. Some prior art food packages were formed with
`
`areas as thin as possible to help bond layers together. Id. The same is true for
`
`rupture surfaces in prior art packaging, where rupture at an intended location was
`
`aided by non-uniform wall thickness to facilitate opening. Id. There were also prior
`
`art chairs or cushions where a thinner area was desirable to more easily elongate
`
`and displace a load, a feature enabling comfort. Id.
`
`3. Thermoplastic Floor Trays of the Prior Art
`Given the advantages of thermoforming in the field of vehicle floor trays, it
`
`is no wonder numerous prior art floor trays and related products, such as vehicle
`
`trunk liners and cargo liners, were thermoformed using thermoplastics. EX1003,
`
`¶53.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`
`
`For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,793,872 to Buss (“Buss”) discloses a
`
`“Method for Making Cargo Liners and Mats with Channel Edge.” EX1012, Title.
`
`The methods disclosed by Buss include thermoforming. Id., Abstract. Specifically,
`
`Buss provided that “[c]argo liners for pickup trucks, SUVs, vans, and even
`
`automobile trunks are well known in the art, as are floor mats for all types of
`
`vehicles. A common method for manufacturing such devices is a plastic
`
`thermoforming process, in particular vacuum or pressure forming.” Id., 1:14-18.
`
`EX1012, FIG. 1.
`
`
`
`Buss explained the state of the art with respect to thermoforming vehicle
`
`floor trays: “[T]hermoforming of sheet materials has proven to provide a cost
`
`effective method of producing finished product of consistent quality.” Id., 1:47-50;
`
`EX1003, ¶54.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`
`
`Similarly, U.S. Patent No. 6,361,099 to McIntosh disclosed a “molded floor
`
`covering for a vehicle floor [which] includes a thermoplastic polymer layer ….”
`
`EX1013, Abstract. According to McIntosh, “[t]he use of molded thermoplastic
`
`polymer compositions as floor coverings for vehicles known as sport utility
`
`vehicles (SUVs) . . . have found growing popularity among consumers . . . .” Id.,
`
`1:22-25. “Many conventional floor coverings, particularly floor coverings for
`
`SUVs, are formed from material that is impervious to water.” Id., 1:37-39.
`
`McIntosh demonstrates advantages offered by thermoplastics in this field,
`
`disclosing “a molded floor covering for a vehicle floor that includes a
`
`thermoplastic polymer layer with a contoured configuration adapted to conform to
`
`the contour of a vehicle floor …. ” Id., 1:54-58; EX1003, ¶55.
`
` Thermoforming using thermoplastics was also known for trunk liners.
`
`EX1003, ¶¶56-57; EX1014, Abstract, 1:11-18, 3:29-35, FIGs. 1-2, 9-12; EX1015,
`
`Abstract, 1:14-23.
`
`Prior art floor trays closely conformed to vehicle sidewalls.
`B.
`Removable, plastic floor trays having side panels that substantially conform
`
`to the foot well’s sidewalls and floor was certainly not new as of 2012 or 2004.
`
`EX1003, ¶¶58-59. The ’186 patent specification admits “[i]t is also common for
`
`such floor mats, where provided for front seat foot wells, to have portions which
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`
`are meant to lie against the firewalls or front surfaces of the foot wells.” EX1001,
`
`1:41-44. The ’186 patent specification further admits:
`
`[m]ore recently, vehicle floor trays have come onto the market. Most
`front-seat vehicle foot wells are actually three-dimensional concave
`shapes, typically with complex curved surfaces. Floor trays have
`sidewalls that offer enhanced protection to the surfaces surrounding
`the vehicle floor, as might be needed against wearers with very muddy
`or snowy shoes.
`Id., 1:50-61.
`Additionally, prior art floor trays disclosed by Black ArmorTM provided
`
`“Custom Molded Floor Guards [to] protect the most wear-prone area of your
`
`Truck, Sport utility Vehicle or Van.” EX1017, 0001. According to published
`
`advertisements, the floor guards disclosed by Back Armor were “precision-crafted
`
`to the exact fit and shape of your vehicle.” Id. Additionally, “[t]he tough co-
`
`polymer material is heated and then vacuum formed over a vehicle specific
`
`aluminum mold.” Id.; EX1003, ¶60.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`
`
`EX1017, 0003.
`
`
`
`Similarly, the Husky brand of floor liners advertised prior-art thermoplastic
`
`floor mats formed to fit the vehicle foot well area “like a glove.” EX1018, 0002.
`
`The Husky Liner Advertisement discloses “[t]ough and durable protection for your
`
`pickup, sport utility vehicle” in the form of a molded thermoplastic vehicle floor
`
`tray having a textured central panel made to closely conform to the contours of the
`
`vehicle floor and upstanding sidewalls of the vehicle foot well. Id., 0001; EX1003,
`
`¶61.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`
`
`EX1018, 0002.
`
`
`
`Furthermore, French Application No. 2,547,252 to Rabbe published
`
`December 14, 1984 “concerns floor mats with raised edges, forming a tray and
`
`providing effective protection of the floors and side walls of vehicle interiors at the
`
`feet of the driver, of the passengers, as well as of the trunks, against water, mud,
`
`snow and other soil.” EX1005, Abstract. Rabbe discloses that “[t]he floor 1 is
`
`totally covered” and “[t]he raised edges 2 and 3 conform to the topography of the
`
`interior and do not change the aesthetics desired by the manufacturer.” Id.;
`
`EX1003, ¶62.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1005, FIGs. 3-4.
`
`In Rabbe’s floor tray, “the sides . . . perfectly conform to the contour of the
`
`vehicle interior at the feet of the driver, those of front and rear passengers as well
`
`as front or rear trunks, for the purpose of ensuring effective protection against any
`
`soiling.” EX1005, 1:3-6. The “raised edges (2) [are] of unequal heights conforming
`
`to the interior contour of the vehicle.” Id., 2:7-9. Rabbe’s floor tray is “produced
`
`from semi-rigid rubber or another material having the same properties” and “[t]he
`
`rigidity of the material used presses the unit against the side walls of the vehicle.”
`
`Id., 1:16-20. Rabbe teaches that “[t]he thinness of the material used only
`
`encroaches on a few millimeters of the space designed by the vehicle
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`
`manufacturer, and thus does not change the desired aesthetic aspect.” Id., 1:24-26;
`
`EX1003, ¶63.
`
`Like Rabbe, Donahue discloses that the side panels of the trunk-liner closely
`
`conform to the sidewalls of the trunk compartment to contact or engage the
`
`sidewalls of the trunk compartment. EX1003, ¶64. Donohue’s sidewalls
`
`“resiliently engage the sidewalls of the trunk compartment when the sidewalls of
`
`the liner are biased inwardly toward an upright position when installed and
`
`mounted in a trunk compartment.” EX1015, Donahue, 1:14-18. This engagement
`
`“facilitates the mounting of the trunk liner in the trunk compartment and the
`
`maintaining of the trunk liner in the installed position and engagement with the
`
`walls of the trunk compartment.” Id., 1:18-23.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`
`
`EX1015, FIG. 1.
`
`Prior art floor mats had a reservoir for collecting liquid.
`C.
`The ’186 patent admits that prior art floor mats included reservoirs for
`
`collecting and containing liquid, snow, and mud that might be tracked into in
`
`vehicle. EX1001, 2:10-18; EX1003, ¶65.
`
`One such prior art floor mat is U.S. Patent No. 4,420,180 to Dupont which
`
`discloses a floor tray made from “any suitable material, such as vinyl, rubber, or
`
`the like.” EX1019, 3:56–57. The floor tray disclosed by Dupont includes a “[m]ain
`
`portion 12 [that] contains a centrally disposed pan 16 which is designed to catch
`
`moisture in the form of water, mud, etc., which would otherwise accumulate on the
`
`trouser legs of the automobile occupants.” Id., 2:40–43; EX1003, ¶66.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`
`
`EX1019, FIGs. 2-3.
`
`Additionally, U.S. Patent No. 4,280,729 to Morawski provides a “floor mat
`
`having an upper and an underside, and a forward and rear end, and in which the
`
`upper side is provided with a tread portion, having a multiplicity of water flow
`
`guide-ways or channels or grooves, communicating with the rear end of the mat,
`
`and guiding water flow from the front towards the rear of the mat, and further
`
`having water collectors at the rear end of the mat, below the plane of the water
`
`guide-ways, in which water may collect.” EX1020, 1:29-37. “The use of the floor
`
`mat is self-evident. Water will simply collect in the grooves 14, and as the vehicle
`
`accelerates it will flow back into the water recesses defined by the walls 26, 28, 30
`
`and 32. At the end of the day, the water collected there may simply be dumped
`
`out.” Id., 2:49-54. See also EX1021, 1:32-40, 3:13-15; EX1003, ¶¶67-68.
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1020, FIGs. 2, 6.
`
`
`
`D. Hollow baffles to elevate feet above water collected in a reservoir
`were not new.
`Hollow baffles were known long before 2012 or 2004. EX1003, ¶¶69-79.
`
`For example, U.S. Application No. 2002/0045029 to Yung discloses a prior art
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`
`example of a floor tray with a reservoir and hollow baffles. Published April 18,
`
`2002, Yung discloses “an improved mat used in cars” including “an upper
`
`polyester fabric, a middle plastic plate or layer, and an under net lining.” EX1006,
`
`Abstract. The plastic plate or layer of Yung is “flexible, light weight, and
`
`waterproof Polyethylene (PE) or Polyethylene-Vinyl Acetate (EVA) foam.” Id.,
`
`¶11.
`
`The floormat disclosed by Yung includes multiple raised areas within a
`
`recessed plate-shaped reservoir. Id., FIG. 1.
`
`
`
`EX1006, FIG. 1
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`
`
`Figures 3 and 4, showing cross sections of the thermoformed mat, disclose
`
`these hollow raised baffles which are referred to in Yung’s disclosure as “umbos.”
`
`Id., ¶13.
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1006, FIGs. 3-4.
`
`Additional prior art including U.S. Patent No. 3,390,912 to Stata, which
`
`issued in 1968, and German Patent DE4000877 to Weitbredcht disclose hollow
`
`baffles in a vehicle floor tray reservoir for the purpose of elevating the feet of a
`
`vehicle occupant. EX1023, FIGs. 1, 3; EX1024; EX1003, ¶¶71-79.
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`
`III. THE ’186 PATENT
`The ’186 patent summarizes the state of the art as set forth above in §§II.A-
`
`D by first admitting that there is nothing new about the idea of forming a vehicle
`
`floor tray from a single sheet of plastic or rubber material so that it conforms to the
`
`shape of a vehicle foot well. EX1003, ¶58. For example, it explains that “foot wells
`
`of cars, trucks and SUVs vary in size in shape [sic] from one model of vehicle to
`
`the next. Floor mat manufacturers have noticed that floor mats which at least
`
`approximately conform to the shape of the bottom surface of the foot well stay in
`
`place better and offer more protection.” EX1001, 1:37-41. It then goes on to admit
`
`that “[m]ost front-seat vehicle foot wells are actually three-dimensional concave
`
`shapes, typically with complex curved surfaces. Floor trays have sidewalls that
`
`offer enhanced protection to the surfaces surrounding the vehicle floor, as might be
`
`needed against wearers with very muddy or snowy shoes.” Id., 1:50-55. The ’186
`
`patent admits further that “[a] conventional vehicle floor tray is typically molded
`
`of a single-ply rubber or plastic material, exhibits enough stiffness to retain a three-
`
`dimensional shape, but is also at least somewhat flexible.” Id., 1:58-60; see also,
`
`2:30-31 (“Conventional vehicle floor mats and trays are molded from a single
`
`rubber or plastic material.”).
`
`After admitting that there is nothing new about the idea of forming a vehicle
`
`floor tray from a single sheet of plastic or rubber material so that it conforms to the
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`
`shape of a vehicle foot well, the ’186 patent’s background explains further that
`
`“[s]ome vehicle floor mats that are now on the market have fluid reservoirs built
`
`into them.” Id., 2:9-10. “These reservoirs typically are recessed areas in the mats
`
`that provide the mats with an enhanced ability to retain snow-melt and the like,
`
`until the water evaporates or can be disposed of by the vehicle owner or user.” Id.,
`
`2:14-18. Thus, the ’186 patent admits that its primary objective and key elements
`
`were already known in the prior art.
`
`Problems Allegedly Addressed by the ’186 Patent
`A.
`The ’186 patent admits that vehicle floor trays were well known. EX1001,
`
`1:50-55. But the ’186 patent states the “foot wells of cars, trucks and SUVs vary in
`
`size in shape from one model of vehicle to the next.” Id., 1:37-38.
`
`Therefore, the alleged need purportedly addressed by the ’186 patent was
`
`“for a floor tray that will have a more exact fit to the vehicle foot well for which it
`
`is provided, that stays in place once it is installed, and that provides a more solid
`
`and certain feel to the occupants’ feet.” Id., 2:5-8; EX1003, ¶¶80-91.
`
`’186 Patent Prosecution History
`B.
`The ’186 patent issued on February 26, 2013. The application giving rise to
`
`the ’186 patent was U.S. Application Serial No. 13/595,703 (“the ’703