`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Chanel, Inc.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Molo Design, LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2021‐00545
`
`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`
`Issue Date: June 27, 2017
`
`Title: “Flexible Furniture System”
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ALAN BALL
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 5
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .............................................................................................................. 6
`BACKGROUND & QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................................... 7
`Overview of Industrial Design ................................................................................................... 7
`Expert Witness Experience ........................................................................................................ 8
`Documents and Materials Considered ...................................................................................... 9
`RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES ...................................................................................................... 10
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................................................. 11
`THE ’161 PATENT ........................................................................................................................ 13
`softwall ................................................................................................................................... 13
`US 9,689,161 ........................................................................................................................... 15
`Challenged Claims ................................................................................................................... 17
`PRIOR ART ................................................................................................................................... 18
`General Background in the Prior Art ....................................................................................... 18
`SoftHousing I, Ex 1005 ............................................................................................................. 19
`Soft Housing II – Ex. 1006 ........................................................................................................ 22
`Soft Housing III ........................................................................................................................ 29
`Arens, Ex. 1013 ........................................................................................................................ 31
`Okuno, Ex1011 ........................................................................................................................ 32
`SoftWall................................................................................................................................... 34
`Kennedy, Ex. 1035 ................................................................................................................... 35
`MacAllen, Ex. 1033 .................................................................................................................. 36
`Additional References ............................................................................................................. 37
`Motivation to Combine ........................................................................................................... 37
`Ground 1: Claims 2, 6‐8, 10, 12, 14, and 18 anticipated by SoftHousing I ............................... 39
`Claim 2 .................................................................................................................................... 39
`Claim 6 .................................................................................................................................... 40
`Claim 7, 8, and 10 .................................................................................................................... 40
`Claim 12 and 14 ....................................................................................................................... 41
`Claim 18 .................................................................................................................................. 41
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1‐10, 12, 14, and 18 obvious by SoftHousing I alone, and in view of
`SoftHousing II, SoftHousing III, Arens, Velcro, and/or Okuno .................................................. 43
`Independent Claim 1 ............................................................................................................... 43
`Independent Claim 2 ............................................................................................................... 45
`Claim 3 .................................................................................................................................... 46
`Claims 4 & 5 ............................................................................................................................ 47
`Claim 6 .................................................................................................................................... 48
`Claim 7, 8, and 10 .................................................................................................................... 48
`Claims 12 and 14 ..................................................................................................................... 49
`Claim 18 .................................................................................................................................. 49
`Ground 3: Claims 2, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 anticipated by SoftWall ............................................ 51
`Claim 2 .................................................................................................................................... 51
`Claim 6 .................................................................................................................................... 52
`Claims 8 and 10 ....................................................................................................................... 53
`Claim 12 and 14 ....................................................................................................................... 53
`Claim 18 .................................................................................................................................. 53
`Ground 4: Claims 1‐10, 12, 14, and 18 obvious by SoftWall alone, and in view of SoftHousing
`I, SoftHousing II, SoftHousing III, Arens, Velcro, and/or Okuno ............................................... 55
`Independent Claim 1 ............................................................................................................... 55
`Claim 2 .................................................................................................................................... 56
`Claim 3 .................................................................................................................................... 58
`Claims 4 and 5 ......................................................................................................................... 58
`Claim 6 .................................................................................................................................... 59
`Claims 7‐10 .............................................................................................................................. 59
`Claim 12 and 14 ....................................................................................................................... 60
`Claim 18 .................................................................................................................................. 60
`Ground 5: Claims 19‐25 and 27 obvious over MacAllen 2008 in view of SoftWall alone, and in
`view of Stratton, Fischer, Reisenthel, Tolna, and/or EnduroFence. ........................................ 61
`Independent Claim 19 ................................................................................................................. 61
`Independent Claim 22 ............................................................................................................. 63
`Claim 20 .................................................................................................................................. 64
`Claim 21 .................................................................................................................................. 65
`Claims 23 ................................................................................................................................. 65
`
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`Claim 27 .................................................................................................................................. 67
`Claims 24 and 25 ..................................................................................................................... 68
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON‐OBVIOUSNESS ............................................................. 69
`A Strong Nexus Exists Between the Objective Evidence and the Merits of the Claimed
`Invention ................................................................................................................................. 69
`The Molo softwall products are coextensive with the ‘161 claimed invention. .................. 69
`The Claimed Invention Achieved Groundbreaking Commercial Success. ............................ 73
`The Claimed Invention Fulfilled a Long‐Felt Need of a lightweight, flexible, and expandable
`product that could be used to configure an interior space in an infinite amount of ways. . 74
`Existing Players in the Industry Demonstrated Skepticism Toward the Claimed Invention . 79
`Industry Acceptance and Praise .............................................................................................. 81
`The Index Award ................................................................................................................. 81
`The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) Permanent Collection .............................................. 83
`Other Awards: ..................................................................................................................... 85
`Museums and Galleries which have acquired and used molo’s softwall: ............................ 85
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 92
`Exhibit A: CV of Alan Ball ............................................................................................................. 93
`Exhibit C: U.S. Patent 9,689,161 .................................................................................................. 99
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`I, Alan Ball, hereby declare as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`I have been retained by Molo Design, Ltd. (“Patent Owner”, stylized within as ‘molo’) as
`an independent expert in this inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding before the Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board (“PTAB”), which I understand involves US 9,689,161 (“the D’161 patent”).
`
`2.
`Although I am being compensated at my rate of $425 per hour for the time I spend on
`this matter no part of my compensation is dependent on the outcome of this proceeding and I
`have no other interest in this proceeding.
`
`3.
`Regarding the ‘161 patent, I understand the instituted grounds relate to the following
`references:
`
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1013
`Ex. 1011
`Ex. 1028
`
`Ex. 1035
`Ex. 1033
`Ex. 1038
`Ex. 1039
`Ex. 1041
`Ex. 1040
`Ex1042
`
`
`SoftHousing
`I
`SoftHousing
`II
`
`SoftHousing
`III
`Arens
`Okuno
`SoftWall
`
`Kennedy
`MacAllen
`Stratton
`Fisher
`Reisenthel
`Tolna
`Enduro
`Fence
`
`
`DBEW International Design Competition 2004, Golden Prize,
`HANSSEM CO., LTD., May 9, 2004.
`Design Beyond East & West, Collection of Winning Works of
`DBEW International Design Contest
`(Interior Architecture of China Magazine ed.)
`TIANJIN UNIVERSITY PRESS, March 2004.
`First Step Soft Housing, Common Ground, Nov. 6, 2003.
`
`US 4,493,174, issued Jan. 15, 1985.
`JP S49‐87173 A, published Aug. 21, 1974.
`Flexible textile walls expand and compress to create rooms‐
`within‐a‐room, ARCHITECTURAL RECORD,
`VOL. 192, NO. 9, P. 205, Sept. 2004
`US 2007/0017172 A1, published Jan. 25, 2007
`US 2006/0260231 A1, published Nov. 23, 2006
`US 7,217,061 B2, issued May 15, 2007
`US Des. 353,946, issued Jan. 3, 1995
`DM 057 813, published Dec. 28, 2005
`US 2005/0076552 A1, published Apr. 14, 2005
`Enduro Fence Package‐150’, MARKERS, INC., Aug. 27, 2008
`
`
`4.
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding the validity of the challenged claims
`1–10, 12, 14, 18–25, and 27 of the ’161 patent.
`
`5.
`
`My opinions are set forth below.
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`6.
`The challenged claims of the ‘161 Patent would not have been obvious to a person
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of invention over all the prior art references and
`combinations of references proposed by the petitioner.
`
`7.
`The petitioner, based in part on Mr. Rake’s declaration, has mischaracterized the
`teachings of many of the prior art references, reading attributes into their disclosures which
`simply are not there and would not be understood by a POSITA. By using references which
`include images of the precursors to the designs protected by ‘161, the petitioner has
`presumptively swept teachings described in the challenged patent into these references which
`are clearly not found with moderate scrutiny.
`
`8.
`The petitioner, and Mr. Rake’s declaration, has failed to properly consider the POSITA at
`the time of the ‘161 application, producing an analysis of the obviousness of the ‘161 patent
`which is entirely poisoned and corrupted by impermissible hindsight.
`
`9.
`Rather than properly considering the POSITA’s motivation to consider and combine
`available prior art references at the time the ‘161 application was filed, the petitioner and Mr.
`Rake conduct their analysis using the challenged claims as a map to conduct a scavenger hunt
`to find teachings in the prior art to construct the challenged claims, entirely illuminated by
`knowledge of the existence and features of flexible furniture of the type described in the
`patent, which had been an award winning and successful commercial product for over 15 years
`at the time of the IPR petition.
`
`10. Mr. Rake’s analysis of the prior references is flawed as he has failed to consider how a
`‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ would have viewed the references and be motivated to
`combine their disclosures. Instead, Mr. Rake has relied upon his considerable design expertise1,
`which clearly surpasses that of a POSITA, to supplement the references with inventive solutions
`which are clearly not disclosed.
`
`11.
`The petitioner has failed to properly consider Secondary indications on non‐
`obviousness, such as commercial success, long felt but unresolved need, failure of others to
`solve the problem, industry praise, and copying. The objective evidence strongly indicates that
`the challenged claims are not obvious.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Rake deposition transcript 98:4‐102:10
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND & QUALIFICATIONS
`
`12. My current CV, which includes a summary of my education and experience, is attached
`as Exhibit A.
`
`13.
`I am an Industrial Designer, Product Developer, and Inventor. I am the founder and
`president of A.B.I.D. Inc. (Alan Ball Industrial Design), an Industrial Design and Product
`Development consulting firm. I have over thirty‐five years of experience as an Industrial
`Designer, designing products for clients ranging from start‐ups to Fortune 500 companies. My
`Industrial Design expertise includes design research, product design, human factors
`(ergonomics), engineering, graphic design, packaging design, and user interface design. I am the
`named inventor of 55 U.S. Design Patents and 11 U.S. Utility Patents. I am an active member of
`the Industrial Designers Society of America (“IDSA”).
`
`14.
`I received a Bachelor of Industrial Design (B.I.D.) from Syracuse University in 1987. My
`studies included art and design studio courses, math and physics courses, technology and
`engineering courses, marketing and business courses, and psychology/human factors courses. I
`minored in information science. As part of my education, I worked as an Industrial Design intern
`at Black and Decker in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and IBM in Kingston, New York. I designed
`handheld cleaning, kitchen, and lighting products at Black and Decker. I designed human
`interface devices for commercial computer systems at IBM.
`
`15.
`For the past thirty‐five years, I have worked primarily as an Industrial Design consultant.
`During this time, I have been employed as a full‐time staff designer in a large consultancy as
`well as a freelance designer. I have founded three design and product development
`consultancies: Altitude Inc., Ziba Boston LLC, and my current company A.B.I.D. Inc. I have
`managed large interdisciplinary design teams and have served as a sole design practitioner. In
`my current position at A.B.I.D., I provide a wide range of Industrial Design and Product
`Development services to my clients.
`
`16.
`I have many years of Industrial Design and product design experience over a broad
`range of product types including medical equipment, laboratory instruments, computers and
`peripherals, power tools, audio products, household cleaning products, residential and
`commercial kitchen appliances, toys, electronics, industrial products, sports equipment,
`personal care products, and pet products. I have designed products that are manufactured by
`methods that include plastic injection molding, thermoforming, pressure forming, rotational
`molding, blow molding, extrusion, sheet metal fabrication, machining, 3D printing, die cutting,
`stamping, forming, forging and die casting.
`
`Overview of Industrial Design
`
`17.
`I have provided this overview of Industrial Design for the reader who may not be
`familiar with this profession.
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`18.
`Design is the act of conceiving and defining a plan, form, and/or structure of an item to
`be made. Industrial Design is the professional art of designing an item, product, or system to be
`produced through processes of modern fabrication or mass production. The creative act of
`Industrial Design takes place in advance of the physical act of making the item, unlike craft‐
`based design in which design is determined by the craftsperson during the creation of the item.
`
`19.
`An Industrial Designer is driven to create a solution that answers the user’s needs and
`desires while meeting cost, technology, manufacturing, and competitive market requirements.
`Successful industrial designs appropriately integrate functionality, aesthetics, human factors,
`sustainability, and manufacturability. The Industrial Design process typically starts with
`research to understand user needs and available technology, then involves ideation and
`conceptualization of multiple design solutions, which are developed, prototyped, and
`evaluated. Eventually a single design concept is selected, refined, and documented for
`production engineering and manufacturing. Industrial Designers can work as individuals or as
`part of a team of designers, as part of an in‐house corporate design group, or in a design
`consulting company that provides design services to multiple companies.
`
`20.
`Industrial Design education is interdisciplinary, typically requiring 4‐5 years of studio‐
`based design courses plus art, liberal arts, technology, psychology, and business courses.
`Industrial Designers often focus on specialties, some of which are Exhibit Design, Product
`Design, Graphic Design, User Interface (UI) Design, User Experience Design (UX), Transportation
`Design, and Design Thinking. With over thirty years as a consulting Industrial Designer, my work
`has included all these areas of Industrial Design.
`
`21.
`Product Development includes Industrial Design, but also involves other disciplines such
`as project management, sourcing, engineering, and manufacturing which are necessary to bring
`an Industrial Design solution through manufacturing to market.
`
`Expert Witness Experience
`
`22.
`I have experience working on over 32 different cases as a design expert since 2012.
`During this time, I have written over 30 expert reports and/or declarations on issues such as
`patent validity, claim construction, design & utility patent infringement, trade dress
`infringement, and copying. I have written declarations in support of and against petitions for
`Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in the United
`States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). I have given testimony through deposition over
`25 times. I have prepared for 4 trials before the ITC, State and U.S. District Courts, and I have
`testified at two trials and one claim construction hearing.
`
`23.
`I have been appointed by the Hon. Judge David O. Carter and am currently serving as
`Special Master for Panasonic v. Getac, Case No. 8:19‐cv‐01118‐DOC‐DFM in the United States
`District Court Central District of California Court. This is a design patent infringement case
`involving ruggedized tablet computers. My role as Special Master is to assist the court in all
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`
`
`aspects of the case, including claim construction, summary judgment hearing and order,
`participation with trial, and preparation of jury instructions.
`
`24.
`A complete list of cases in which I have provided expert witness services is included on
`my Curriculum Vitae, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`Documents and Materials Considered
`
`25.
`In reaching the conclusions described herein, I have considered the materials identified
`in Exhibit B of this declaration. The citations to references in this report are intended to be
`exemplary and are not intended to convey that the citations are the only source of evidence to
`support the propositions for which they are cited.
`
`26. My opinions are also based on my education, training, research, knowledge, and
`experience. In forming my opinions, I have particularly relied on my knowledge and experience
`in product development and as an Industrial Designer and a Product Designer who has designed
`numerous consumer products.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`
`
`RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`27.
`In analyzing claim validity, “the first step involves the proper interpretation of the
`claims. The second step involves determining whether the limitations of the claims as properly
`interpreted are met by the prior art.” Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1335
`(Fed Cir. 2002) (quoting Beachcombers, Int’l, Inc. v. WildeWood Creative Products, Inc., 31 F.3d
`1154, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). A patent claim may be rendered invalid if the claim is anticipated
`or obvious in light of prior art. Beckson Marine, Inc. v. NFM Inc., 292 F.3d 713, 726‐27 (Fed. Cir.
`2002). For a patent to be invalid, each and every claim must be invalid. It is not enough that
`the independent claims alone be invalid. 35 U.S.C. § 282(a) (“Each claim of a patent (whether in
`independent, dependent, or multiple dependent form) shall be presumed valid independently
`of the validity of other claims.”).
`
`28.
`A patent claim is invalid if it encompasses an invention that is not new, or “anticipated.”
`See 35 U.S.C. § 102. A claimed invention is said to be new or novel if the invention is not
`identically found in, or anticipated by, the prior art. See, e.g., Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co.,
`868 F.2d 1226, 1236‐37 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “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. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
`Consequently, [t]he identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in
`the . . . claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In order to
`anticipate the claims, a single reference must disclose all claim limitations, arranged in the
`same way in the claim. Finisar Corp. v. Direct TV Group, Inc, 523 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir.
`2008).
`
`29.
`A prior art reference can anticipate a claim even if one or more of the claim elements is
`suggested, but not performed, as long as that suggestion would be enabling to a POSITA.
`Bristol‐Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2001). A prior
`art reference may also anticipate a claim even if not all of the claim elements are expressly
`disclosed in the reference, as long as they are inherent in its disclosure. MEHL/Biophile Int’l
`Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`
`30.
`A patent claim is invalid if it is an obvious modification or improvement of the prior art.
`See 35 U.S.C. § 103. A determination of obviousness must take into account: (1) the scope and
`content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, and
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17
`(1966). In addition to these three factors, secondary, or “objective” considerations, such as
`commercial success, long felt but unsolved need, and failure of others may give light to the
`circumstances surrounding the origins of the claimed invention, and in turn, the obviousness
`inquiry. Id. at 17‐18; see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
`
`31.
`The Supreme Court recognizes that that “inventions in most, if not all instances rely
`upon building blocks” that are “already known.” KSR Int’l Co at 418‐19 (2007). The Supreme
`
`
`Page 10
`
`
`
`Court has also cautioned that the obviousness inquiry must “guard against slipping into use of
`hindsight and to resist the temptation to read into the prior art the teachings of the invention in
`issue.” Graham at 36 (1966) (citation omitted). To avoid the tainting the obviousness analysis
`with hindsight “a judge must not pick and choose isolated elements from the prior art … if such
`a combination would not have been obvious at the time of the invention.” Dennison Mfg. Co. v.
`Panduit Corp., 475 U.S. 809, 810 (1986); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC, 435 F. App’x 917,
`921 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t is impermissible to pick and choose from any one reference only so
`much of it as will support a given position.”).
`
`32. When reviewing a combination of references for motivation to combine, the question is
`what a skilled artisan would have been motivated to do at the time of the invention, as
`opposed to what a skilled artisan would have been able to do. See Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic
`Cat Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1068‐69 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding that a party’s expert “succumbed
`to hindsight bias in her obviousness analysis” where such analysis “primarily consisted of
`conclusory references to her belief that one of ordinary skill in the art could combine these
`references, not that they would have been motivated to do so”) (internal citation omitted).
`That is, it should be asked what a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do,
`not simply what is possible to do. With regard to impermissible hindsight reconstruction it has
`been recognized that the prejudice of hindsight bias often overlooks that the genius of
`invention is often a combination of known elements which in hindsight seems preordained. See
`id. at 1068 (citing Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 711 F.3d 1348,
`1368 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
`2001))). “When the art in question is relatively simple, as is the case here, the opportunity to
`judge by hindsight is particularly tempting.” Polaris, 882 F.3d at 1068 (quoting McGinley, 262
`F.3d at 1351).
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`33.
`I understand that in regard to the question of whether a patent claim is obvious it must
`be considered through the eyes of a ‘person of ordinary skill in the art’ (POSITA) at the time of
`the invention.
`
`34.
`I understand Mr. Rake has opined that a ‘Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA)
`would have a bachelor’s degree and at least two years of relevant experience working as an
`industrial designer, interior designer, furniture designer, architect, or other similar professional.
`The POSITA would be knowledgeable regarding furniture design and/or the design of exhibit
`and display systems and would have a general understanding of related manufacturing
`processes. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`
`
`significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.2 I believe this is an
`accurate definition of a POSITA and have used this for my analysis.
`
`35.
`I do not believe Mr. Rake properly considered and applied his own definition of the
`POSITA in his analysis; instead, Mr. Rake used his experience as a design expert with over 40
`years of design experience. In his analysis Mr. Rake suggests that clearly inventive changes and
`improvements to prior art disclosures would be obvious to a POSITA. Perhaps these changes
`would appear obvious to Mr. Rake due to his extensive expertise, but a POSITA would not find
`them obvious, they would find them inventive. Mr. Rake’s failure to properly consider the
`POSITA poisons his analysis of obviousness of the challenged claims.
`
`36.
`I have employed the correct definition of the POSITA in my analysis. While I personally
`have more design experience than a POSITA, I have worked extensively with designers having a
`comparable level of experience of a POSITA. As a design team participant, leader, and
`manager, I am very familiar with the aptitude of a POSITA as defined herein, and I have applied
`this understanding to my analysis.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Rake Declaration ¶ 42
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`
`
`THE ’161 PATENT
`
`softwall
`
`37.
`The genesis of ’softwall’ (product name as stylized by molo) was a design concept
`conceived by architects Stephanie Forsythe and Todd MacAllen for the International Design
`Competition: Northern Style Housing Complex in Aomori (Japan), herein called ‘Aomori Housing
`Competition’. The concept involved expandible/compressible private spaces within the home
`that could fold away when not in use to allow the otherwise small apartment to feel quite
`spacious. The following images show the competition entry, which won the Grand Prize and
`Forsythe and MacAllen were Commissioned to develop the design for a specific building site:
`
`Forsythe and MacAllen’s Aomori Housing Competition entry,
`showing model and drawings of their expandible compressible room concept.
`
`38.
`Forsythe and MacAllen continued to develop their “soft” concept for interior spaces,
`creating preliminary conceptual prototypes for products related to interior architecture,
`partitions, furniture and lighting; these were never sold, offered for sale or made commercially
`available.
`
`
`
`39.
`The following image from 2002‐2003 shows designer, Stephanie Forsythe with full size
`softwall prototype, which were neither self‐supporting nor vertically stable standing on their
`own, rendering them prone to collapse.
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`
`
`SofWall prototypes, 2002‐3.
`
`40.
`In 2003 Forsythe and MacAllen entered their ‘SoftHousing’ concept for flexible
`honeycomb rooms with integral seating, beds, walls, and ceilings into the 2003 Design Beyond
`East and West Competition. The prototypes entered at this time were conceptual; they were
`not self‐supporting or vertically staple on their own and prone to collapse. Forsythe and
`MacAllen’s entry was awarded the Golden Prize. This photo was part of the competition entry,
`and show Ms. Forsythe extending a prototype which is secured to a wall for support.
`
`
`
`‘SoftHousing’ concept for flexible honeycomb rooms with integral seating, beds, walls, and ceilings.
`
`41.
`On December 23, 2003, Forsythe and MacAllen incorporated MOLO DESIGN, LTD.,
`hereinafter called “MOLO”, to commercialize their softwall, softblock, and other “soft” concept
`products.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`
`
`42.
`By May 2005, Forsythe and MacAllen had refined the softwall concept to be
`freestanding without the need t