Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 17
`Date: January 13, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`YITA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`MACNEIL IP LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01139
`Patent 8,382,186 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and
`ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. BACKGROUND
`Yita LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a petition (Paper 3, “Pet.”) to institute an
`inter partes review of claims 1–7 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,382,186 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’186 patent”). 35 U.S.C. § 311. MacNeil
`IP LLC (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 11
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 17
`Date: January 13, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`YITA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`MACNEIL IP LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01139
`Patent 8,382,186 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and
`ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. BACKGROUND
`Yita LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a petition (Paper 3, “Pet.”) to institute an
`inter partes review of claims 1–7 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,382,186 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’186 patent”). 35 U.S.C. § 311. MacNeil
`IP LLC (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01139
`Patent 8,382,186 B2
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). With our prior authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply to
`the Preliminary Response, Paper 15 (“Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a
`Sur-reply in response to the Reply, Paper 16 (“Sur-reply”).
`Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any
`response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–7 as being obvious
`in view of the combined teachings of Rabbe,1 Yung,2 and Gruenwald.3
`Pet. 27–81.
`Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the Petition
`(including its supporting testimonial evidence) as well as the evidence and
`arguments in the Preliminary Response, Reply, and Sur-reply, for the
`reasons below, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable
`likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged
`claims. We thus institute inter partes review on all challenged claims under
`all asserted grounds. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354,
`1359–60 (2018); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354,
`1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no
`
`
`1 Certified English-language translation of French Patent Publication No.
`2,547,252, published December 14, 1984 (Ex. 1005, “Rabbe”).
`2 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0045029 A1, published April 18, 2002
`(Ex. 1006, “Yung”).
`3 G. Gruenwald, Thermoforming: A Plastics Processing Guide, Technomic
`Publishing Company, Inc. (2nd Ed. 1998) (Ex. 1007, “Gruenwald”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01139
`Patent 8,382,186 B2
`institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in
`the petition”); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice
`Guide, 64 (Nov. 2019) (“The Board will not institute on fewer than all
`claims or all challenges in a petition.”), available at https://www.uspto.gov/
`sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf (“Consolidated Guide”).
`B. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`The parties identify the following matters as related:
`• MacNeil Auto. Prods. Ltd. et al. v. Yita LLC et al., No. 2:20-cv-
`00278 (WDWA);
`• MacNeil Auto. Prods. Ltd. et al. v. Jinrong (SH) Auto. Accessory
`Dev. Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:20-cv-00856 (WDWA);
`• IPR2020-01138, which also seeks review of the ’186 patent; and
`• IPR2020-01140, which seeks review of the related U.S. Patent No.
`8,833,834 B2 (the “’834 patent”); and
`• IPR2020-01142, which also seeks review of the ’834 patent.
`Pet. 81–82; Paper 6, 2.
`C. REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST
`Petitioner identifies itself, Jinrong (SH) Automotive Development
`Co., Ltd., ShenTian (SH) Industrial Development Co., Ltd, and Hong Kong
`Yita International Trade Company Limited as the real parties-in-interest.
`Pet. 81. Patent Owner identifies itself, MacNeil Automotive Products
`Limited, and WeatherTech Direct, LLC as the real parties-in-interest.
`Paper 6, 2.
`D. THE ’186 PATENT
`The ’186 patent is titled “Vehicle Floor Tray.” Ex. 1001, code (54).
`The Specification describes a vehicle floor tray that is thermoformed from a
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01139
`Patent 8,382,186 B2
`polymer sheet of uniform thickness. Id. at code (57). The Specification
`explains a need for a removable floor tray that fits precisely within a
`vehicle’s foot well so that it’s more likely to remain in position during
`vehicle operation, thereby minimizing the chance that it occludes the gas,
`brake, or clutch pedal. See id. at 1:29–35, 2:4–8.
`Figure 1, reproduced at
`right, illustrates vehicle floor
`tray (or cover) 100 that is
`designed to protect a vehicle’s
`floor and lower sides of the
`foot well. See id. at 6:24–25.
`Floor tray 100 includes floor
`(or central panel) 102 with
`channels 104 disposed in
`forward region 106 of the
`panel. Id. at 6:27–31.
`Representative Claim 1, which is the only independent claim among
`the challenged claims, recites:
`1. A vehicle floor tray thermoformed from a sheet of
`thermoplastic polymeric material of substantially uniform
`thickness, comprising:
`[a] a central panel substantially conforming to a floor of a vehicle
`foot well,
`[b] the central panel of the floor tray having at least one
`longitudinally disposed lateral side and at least one
`transversely disposed lateral side;
`[c] a first panel integrally formed with the central panel of the
`floor tray, upwardly extending from the transversely disposed
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01139
`Patent 8,382,186 B2
`lateral side of the central panel of the floor tray, and closely
`conforming to a first foot well wall,
`[d] the first panel of the floor tray joined to the central panel
`of the floor tray by a curved transition;
`[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,
`[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;
`[g] a reservoir disposed in the central panel of the floor tray;
`[h] a plurality of upstanding, hollow, elongate baffles disposed
`in the reservoir,
`[i] each of the baffles having at least two ends remote from
`each other,
`[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;
`[k] the baffles each having a width, in any horizontal direction,
`of more than two times its thickness,
`[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,
`[m] any portion of the reservoir connected to a remote portion of
`the reservoir by a path formed around ends of the baffles.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01139
`Patent 8,382,186 B2
`Id. at 19:35–20:24 (certain line breaks and Petitioner’s labels added to aid
`discussion).
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. CLAIM INTEPRETATION
`For petitions such as this one that are filed after November 13, 2018,
`we interpret claims in the same manner used in a civil action under
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b) “including construing the claim in accordance with the
`ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of
`ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.”
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). When applying that standard, we interpret the
`claim language as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`in light of the specification. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260
`(Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary
`meaning as understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan. See In re Translogic
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and
`customary meaning ‘is the meaning that the term would have to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art in question.’”). Only terms that are in controversy
`need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868
`F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`The parties dispute the construction of the claimed “thicknesses . . .
`being substantially uniform throughout the tray.” See Pet. 26 (entire tray has
`“thickness approaching complete uniformity”); see also Prelim. Resp. 21
`(“[Petitioner’s proposed construction] has no basis in the ’186 Patent claims
`or specification and is entirely inconsistent with the knowledge of a
`POSITA”) (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 36–41).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01139
`Patent 8,382,186 B2
`Despite the parties’ disagreement as to the construction of this
`limitation, we do not discern a need to explicitly construe it or any of the
`other claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analysis
`below. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.
`B. LEGAL STANDARDS
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–7 on the grounds
`that the claims are obvious in light of Rabbe, Yung, and Gruenwald. “A
`claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
`found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
`reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
`631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v.
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), reaffirmed the framework for
`determining obviousness as set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
`1 (1966). The KSR Court summarized the four factual inquiries set forth in
`Graham that we apply in determining whether a claim is reasonably likely to
`be unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
`(1) determining the scope and content of the prior art, (2) ascertaining the
`differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, (3) resolving the
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) when of record,
`considering objective evidence indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. With these standards in mind, we address each
`challenge below.
`C. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the
`time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
`at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01139
`Patent 8,382,186 B2
`Factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill in the
`art include: (1) educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems
`encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity
`with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and
`(6) educational level of workers active in the field. Environmental Designs,
`Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–697 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing
`Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376,
`1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Not all such factors may be present in every
`case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a
`particular case. Id. Moreover, these factors are not exhaustive but are
`merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi
`Sankyo Co. Ltd, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`In determining a level of ordinary skill, we also may look to the prior
`art, which may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261
`F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the relevant
`art (“POSITA” or “POSA”):
`would have had a bachelor’s degree in engineering: plastics,
`mechanical, or a closely related field, or equivalent formal
`training, education, or practical experience in a field relating to
`plastic product design, material science, or manufacturing. This
`person would also have a minimum of three to five years of
`experience in plastics engineering, manufacturing, plastic
`product design, or a related industry. This description is an
`approximation and a higher level of training or practical
`experience might make up for less education, and vice-versa.
`Pet. 24 (internal citations omitted and citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–28).
`Patent Owner, on the other hand, proposes a definition similar to that
`of Petitioner, but further adds that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01139
`Patent 8,382,186 B2
`“at least have three years of industry experience with thermoforming.”
`Prelim. Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 32) (emphasis added). Patent Owner
`explains: “Industry knowledge and experience in the thermoforming
`industry is paramount here to understanding the ’186 Patent’s
`thermoforming processes, and particularly to understanding why the recited
`tray features have substantially uniform thicknesses.” Id. at 16. (citing
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 34).
`Patent Owner suggests that Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Koch, is not a
`POSITA, because he lacks “substantial industry knowledge and experience
`in thermoforming.” See id. at 15 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 3–17); see also id. at 16
`(“Petitioner’s expert has no such experience”).
`At this stage of the proceeding, we agree with Patent Owner’s position
`that industry knowledge and experience in the thermoforming industry is
`important to understanding the claimed thermoformed tray. Petitioner
`submits that a skilled artisan would have manufactured Rabbe’s floor tray
`using thermoforming (see Pet. 35–37), and the claims recite a “vehicle floor
`tray thermoformed from a sheet of thermoplastic polymeric material.” See
`Ex. 1001, 19:35–36.
`For purposes of this Decision, we agree that experience in
`thermoforming is relevant to the level of ordinary skill. However, we also
`consider that advanced education and experience in related methods of
`forming plastics may suffice in the absence of having specific commercial
`experience with thermoforming. With this understanding and at this stage of
`the proceeding, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill as being
`better directed to the claimed technology, and we consider the testimony
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01139
`Patent 8,382,186 B2
`from both parties’ experts to be probative on how an ordinarily skilled
`artisan would understand the claimed technology and the applied prior art.
`D. PARALLEL PETITIONS CHALLENGING THE ’186 PATENT
`In addition to the instant Petition, Petitioner concurrently filed a
`second petition challenging the same claims. See IPR2020-01138, Paper 3.
`Patent Owner argues that we should limit our review of the ’186 patent to
`only one petition, if any. See Paper 12, 1 (“Patent Owner requests the
`Board, if it decides to institute review of any of the petitions, to restrict
`Petitioner to only one petition.”); see also Consolidated Guide 59 (“multiple
`petitions by a petitioner are not necessary in the vast majority of cases.”).
`Because we deny review in IPR2020-01138 on substantive grounds
`(see IPR2020-01138, Paper 17), we need not decide whether the facts justify
`institution of two inter partes reviews to challenge the same patent.
`E. DISCRETION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`Patent Owner argues that we should exercise discretion under
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution based on prior examination. See
`Prelim. Resp. 30.
`Section 325(d) provides that in determining whether to institute an
`inter partes review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject
`the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art
`or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” As set forth in our
`precedential Advanced Bionics decision, the Board uses a two-part
`framework in determining whether to exercise its discretion under § 325(d),
`specifically:
`(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was
`presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the
`same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01139
`Patent 8,382,186 B2
`(2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is
`satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office
`erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged
`claims.
`See Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6, 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential).
`In applying the two-part framework, we consider several non-
`exclusive factors, including: (a) the similarities and material differences
`between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b)
`the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during
`examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during
`examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection;
`(d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during
`examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or
`Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed
`out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior
`art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the
`Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Id. at 9–11
`(citing Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-
`01586, Paper 8, 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5,
`first paragraph)). If, after review of factors (a), (b), and (d), we determine
`that the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were
`presented to the Office, then we consider factors (c), (e), and (f), which
`relate to whether the petitioner demonstrates that the Office erred in a
`manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. Id. at 10.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01139
`Patent 8,382,186 B2
`For the reasons set forth below, under the facts presented and
`arguments made, we decline to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 325(d) to deny instituting trial.
`1. Prosecution History of the ’186 Patent
`In a Notice of Allowance, the examiner allowed the claims as
`originally filed, stating: “the prior art does not disclose or show an obvious
`combination of hollow baffles as recited in claim 1.” Ex. 1002, 117; see
`also generally id. (containing no rejection of any claim by examiner or
`amendment of any claim during prosecution by applicant).
`2. Patent Owner’s Argument
`Patent Owner argues that the references relied upon by Petitioner—
`Rabbe, Yung, and Gruenwald—were either already considered by the Office
`or cumulative to references that were considered. Prelim. Resp. 30–31.
`As to Rabbe, Patent Owner argues that Rabbe is cumulative to
`Wheaton (U.S. Patent No. 3,288,187, “Wheaton”) and Oger (U.S. Patent No.
`3,401,975, “Oger”), which were considered by the Office “in other, parent
`applications.” Id. at 32. In support of this argument, Patent Owner submits
`the following figure:
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01139
`Patent 8,382,186 B2
`The figure is a side-by-side view of Rabbe’s, Wheaton’s, and Oger’s
`flexible floor coverings. See id. at 33–34. Patent Owner contends, “There is
`nothing in Rabbe that is not substantially similar to disclosure in references
`already considered by the Office.” Id. at 36; see also Sur-reply 1–2
`(presenting the same argument).
`3. Petitioner’s Reply
`In addressing § 325(d), Petitioner contends that Rabbe discloses
`elements 1a, 1c, 1e. Pet. 37–47. Petitioner explains that Rabbe includes
`teachings relating to these elements that were not found in Wheaton or Oger.
`Reply 3. In particular, Petitioner submits that “Rabbe discloses a floor tray
`where ‘the sides . . . perfectly conform to the contour of the vehicle interior
`at the feet of the driver.’” Id.
`We agree with Petitioner.
`4. Analysis
`Rabbe was not evaluated during examination and it is not cumulative
`to Wheaton or Oger. We find little overlap between the arguments made
`during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on Rabbe. As
`such, Becton, Dickinson factors (a), (b), (c), and (d) weigh against exercising
`our discretion under § 325(d), and we need not address factors (e) and (f).
`See Becton, Dickinson, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8, 10.
`Rabbe explicitly discloses,
`The purpose of the present invention is the protection of
`the floors and side walls of vehicle interiors; it concerns
`automobile floor mats, in the form of a tray, the sides of which
`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.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01139
`Patent 8,382,186 B2
`. . . .
`
`The protective tray according to the invention makes it
`possible to avoid these disadvantages. The edges thereof, of
`unequal heights, are raised by several centimeters over the full
`periphery thereof and therefore make it possible to keep the dirt
`inside the tray thus formed. The protective tray, produced from
`semi-rigid rubber or another material having the same
`properties, conforms to the contour of the vehicle interior, and
`thanks to the flexibility thereof, handling and installation are
`easy. The rigidity of the material used presses the unit against
`the side walls of the vehicle. Once the protective tray is removed
`from the vehicle, it can be cleaned by simply spraying it off.
`Transporting sand, gravel, drums that are more or less sealed, in
`the trunk is no problem whatsoever for the maintenance of the
`vehicle. Muddy boots, snow or water cannot harm the vehicle
`interior. The thinness of the material used only encroaches on a
`few millimeters of
`the space designed by
`the vehicle
`manufacturer, and thus does not change the desired aesthetic
`aspect.
`Ex. 1005, 1:1–26 (emphases added).
`Even if the figures of Rabbe, Wheaton, and Oger share some
`similarity in that they each depict vehicle floor mats with shapes and
`contours that appear custom-fit to an interior of a vehicle’s foot wells, only
`Rabbe explicitly discloses a tray “the sides of which perfectly conform to the
`contour of the vehicle interior at the feet of the driver.” Id. at 1:3–4
`(emphasis added).
`Regarding Yung, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s assertion that “the
`examiner clearly erred in applying Yung because Yung discloses the feature
`of claim 1 provided in the reasons for allowance.” Reply 4; see also Pet. 35
`(“Yung discloses the claimed baffle features, which was the reason for the
`Examiner’s allowance”) (citing Ex. 1002, 117). Furthermore, it appears that
`Rabbe also describes the claimed baffle features that the examiner identified
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01139
`Patent 8,382,186 B2
`as a basis for allowing the claims. See Pet. 50–51 (“A POSA would have
`understood Rabbe’s corrugations—upstanding, elongate features on the
`bottom panel of the floor tray—are baffles”) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 148).
`For the foregoing reasons, we find that the same or substantially the
`same art or arguments were not previously presented to the Office and the
`examiner committed error, and we decline to exercise our discretion to deny
`institution under § 325(d).
`F. CLAIMS 1–7: OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW OF RABBE, YUNG, AND GRUENWALD
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over
`Rabbe, Yung, and Gruenwald. Pet. 27–81.
`1. Rabbe
`Rabbe is an English-language translation of French Patent Document
`FR 2547252. Ex. 1005, 1. Rabbe is titled “Protective Tray for Vehicle
`Interiors” and discloses “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 the trunks, against
`water, mud, snow and other soil.” Id. at codes (54), (57). We reproduce
`Figure 3 of Rabbe, below:
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01139
`Patent 8,382,186 B2
`Figure 3 depicts Rabbe’s protective tray with corrugated bottom, raised
`edges 2 “of unequal heights conforming to the interior contour of the
`vehicle, particularly the location of” wheels 3, and with flanges 4. See id.
`at 2:7–15.
`2. Yung
`Yung is a U.S. Patent Application titled “Mat Used in Cars.”
`Ex. 1006, code (54). Yung describes a floor mat with a middle plastic plate
`or layer that is “flexible, light weight, and waterproof Polyethylene (PE) or
`Polyethylene—Vinyl Acetate (EVA) foam.” Id. ¶ 11. We reproduce
`Figure 3 of Yung, below:
`
`
`
`Figure 3 depicts a cross-sectional view of Yung’s car mat. See id. ¶¶ 6, 8.
`3. Gruenwald
`Gruenwald is a book titled “Thermoforming: A Plastics Processing
`Guide.” Ex. 1007, 1. Gruenwald discloses, in relevant part, reducing wall
`thickness in male and female molds (id. at 37–43), drape forming (id.
`at 162–163), billow drape forming (id. at 165), snap-back forming (id.
`at 166), reverse draw with plug-assist forming (id. at 167), and design
`considerations (id. at 183–186).
`4. Independent Claim 1
`a) Preamble
`The preamble of claim 1 recites: “A vehicle floor tray thermoformed
`from a sheet of thermoplastic polymeric material of substantially uniform
`thickness, comprising.” Ex. 1001, 19:35–37. Petitioner submits that “to the
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01139
`Patent 8,382,186 B2
`extent the preamble of claim 1 is limiting, the combination of Rabbe, Yung,
`and Gruenwald combination teaches the preamble.” Pet. 37. As discussed
`above, Rabbe discloses floor trays for vehicle interiors. See Ex. 1005, code
`(57). Without determining whether the preamble is limiting, at this stage of
`the proceeding, Petitioner has made a reasonable showing that Rabbe
`discloses this limitation.
`b) Element 1a
`Element 1a refers to: “a central panel substantially conforming to a
`floor of a vehicle foot well.” Ex. 1001, 19:38–39. Petitioner submits that
`Rabbe’s floor tray, as shown in blue on its annotated versions of Rabbe’s
`Figures 3 and 4 (reproduced below), disclose the central panel. Pet. 37.
`
`
`Petitioner points to Rabbe’s disclosure that “the floor is totally covered” and
`“raised edges 2 and 3 [of the tray] conform to the topography of the
`interior,” that corresponds to the requirement of “substantially conforming to
`a floor.” Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1005, code (57), 1:1–6, Figs. 3, 4; Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 128–129).
`At this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner has made a reasonable
`showing that at least Rabbe discloses this limitation.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01139
`Patent 8,382,186 B2
`c) Element 1b
`Element 1b refers to: “the central panel of the floor tray having at
`least one longitudinally disposed lateral side and at least one transversely
`disposed lateral side.” Ex. 1001, 19:39–41. Petitioner submits that Rabbe’s
`floor tray, as shown in annotated versions of Rabbe’s Figures 3 and 4
`(reproduced below), and Yung’s floor tray as shown in its Figure 1, each
`discloses element 1b. Pet. 39–40 (citing Ex. 1005, Figs. 3, 4; Ex. 1006,
`Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 130–131).
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s annotated versions of Rabbe’s Figures 3 and 4, which are
`perspective views of Rabbe’s protective tray, indicate in red the claimed
`sides of the central panel.
`At this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner has made a reasonable
`showing that at least Rabbe discloses this limitation.
`d) Element 1c
`Element 1c refers to: “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.” Ex. 1001, 19:42–45. Petitioner submits that Rabbe’s
`floor tray, as shown in annotated versions of Rabbe’s Figures 3 and 4
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01139
`Patent 8,382,186 B2
`(reproduced below), and Yung’s floor tray as shown in its Figure 1, each
`discloses element 1b. Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:1–6, 1:24–26, Figs. 3,
`4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 132).
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s annotated versions of Rabbe’s Figures 3 and 4, which are
`perspective views of Rabbe’s protective tray, highlight the claimed first
`panel in red.
`Patent Owner argues that the proposed combination does not satisfy a
`“first tray wall” that “substantially conforms” to the respective foot well
`wall. See Prelim. Resp. 65. In particular, Patent Owner explains that “close
`conformance to a foot well wall means that a very high percentage of the
`first . . . panel surface area is within a very close proximity to the ‘foot well
`surfaces to which they mate.’” Id. at 66. In distinguishing Rabbe’s floor
`tray, Patent Owner submits that “Rabbe is ambiguous” (id. at 67) and that
`Rabbe’s language of “perfectly conforming to the contour of the vehicle
`interior,” refers to “nothing more than conformance with the ‘outline,’
`‘shape’ or ‘general form or structure’ of the vehicle” (id. at 68).
`Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive. We find Patent Owner’s
`interpretation of Rabbe to be too restrictive.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01139
`Patent 8,382,186 B2
`Rather, we agree with Petitioner’s reading of Rabbe. Specifically, we
`agree with Petitioner’s position that Rabbe’s disclosure of sidewalls that
`“perfectly conform to the contour of the vehicle interior at the feet of the
`driver . . . encompasses ‘closely conform[ing].’” Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 132) (emphasis omitted).
`At this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner has made a reasonable
`showing that at least Rabbe discloses this limitation.
`e) Element 1d
`Element 1d refers to: “the first panel of the floor tray joined to the
`central panel of the floor tray by a curved transition.” Ex. 1001, 19:45–47.
`Petitioner submits that Rabbe and Yung both expressly describe the claimed
`first panel being joined to the central panel and that Yung and Gruenwald
`each expressly describes a curved transition between this pair of panels.
`Pet. 42–46 (citing Ex. 1005, code (57), 2:10–11, Figs. 3, 4; Ex. 1006,
`Figs. 3, 4; Ex. 1007, 35–37, 53, 162; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 132–137).
`At this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner has made a reasonable
`showing that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the
`teachings of Rabbe, Yung, and Gruenwald to arrive at a tray having
`element 1d.
`f) Element 1e
`Element 1e refers to: “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.” Ex. 1001, 19:48–20:3.
`Petitioner submits that Rabbe’s floor tray, as shown in annotated versions of
`Rabbe’s Figures 3 and 4 (reproduced below), and Yung’s floor tray as
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01139
`Patent 8,382,186 B2
`shown in its Figure 1, each disclose element 1b. Pet. 46–47 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 1:1–6, Figs. 3, 4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 140).
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s annotated versions of Rabbe’s Figures 3 and 4, which are
`perspective views of Rabbe’s protective tray, highlight the claimed second
`panel in blue.
`Patent Owner argues that Rabbe’s alleged “second panel” does not
`“closely conform” to the foot well. Prelim. Resp. 65–70. For the reasons
`expressed in Part II.F.4.d) above, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s
`argument at this stage of the proceeding. Petitioner has made a reasonable
`showing that at least Rabbe discloses this limitation.
`g) Element 1f
`Element 1f refers to: “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.” Ex. 1001, 20:3–5. Petitioner submits that Rabbe and
`Yung both expressly describe the claimed first panel being joined to the
`central panel and that Yung and Gruenwald each expressly describe a curved
`transition between this pair of panels. Pet. 47–48 (cross-referencing
`argument and evidence for element 1d among other sections of the Petition).
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01139
`Patent 8,382,186 B2
`At this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner has made a reasonable
`showing that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the
`teachings of Rabbe, Yung, and Gruenwald to arrive at a tray having
`element 1f.
`h) Element 1g
`Element 1g refers to: “a reservoir disposed in the central panel of the
`floor tray.” Ex. 1001, 20:6. Petitioner id
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
