`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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: Jan. 11, 2011
`Title: “Flexible Furniture System”
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LANCE RAKE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`Page 1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Background and Qualifications ....................................................................... 2
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. Applicable Law ................................................................................................ 8
`
`IV. The ’161 Patent .............................................................................................. 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Brief Description ................................................................................. 10
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 13
`
`V.
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 14
`
`VI. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 14
`
`VII. Background .................................................................................................... 16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Types of Art that a POSITA Would Review ...................................... 16
`
`General Background in the Prior Art .................................................. 17
`
`Primary Prior Art References .............................................................. 20
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Soft Housing (2003-2004) ........................................................ 20
`
`SoftWall (2004) ......................................................................... 24
`
`3. MacAllen (2008) ....................................................................... 24
`
`VIII. General Motivations to Combine .................................................................. 25
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Combining Prior Art References Describing the Same Product
`and/or by the Same Inventor ............................................................... 25
`
`Arrangement of Multiple Units ........................................................... 29
`
`Combination with Prior Art Fasteners ................................................ 31
`
`Combination with Prior Art Supports ................................................. 31
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`Page 2
`
`

`

`E. Modification of Sizes Depending Upon Application .......................... 35
`
`F. Modification of Materials Used .......................................................... 36
`
`IX. Grounds of Unpatentability ........................................................................... 37
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 2, 6-8, 10, 12, 14 are Anticipated by
`SoftHousing I ....................................................................................... 37
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Independent Claim 2 ................................................................. 37
`
`Dependent Claim 6.................................................................... 41
`
`Dependent Claims 7, 8, 10 ........................................................ 41
`
`Dependent Claims 12, 14 .......................................................... 42
`
`Dependent Claim 18 ................................................................. 44
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-10, 12, 14 and 18 are Obvious Over
`SoftHousing I Alone and in View of SoftHousing II-III, Arens,
`Velcro, and/or Okuno .......................................................................... 44
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 45
`
`Independent Claim 2 ................................................................. 50
`
`Dependent Claim 3.................................................................... 50
`
`Dependent Claims 4, 5 .............................................................. 51
`
`Dependent Claim 6.................................................................... 54
`
`Dependent Claims 7-10 ............................................................. 54
`
`Dependent Claims 12, 14 .......................................................... 54
`
`Dependent Claim 18 ................................................................. 54
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 2, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 are Anticipated by
`SoftWall ............................................................................................... 55
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`Page 3
`
`

`

`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Independent Claim 2 ................................................................. 55
`
`Dependent Claim 6.................................................................... 58
`
`Dependent Claims 8, 10 ............................................................ 58
`
`Dependent Claims 12, 14 .......................................................... 59
`
`Dependent Claim 18 ................................................................. 61
`
`D. Ground 4: Claims 1-10, 12, 14 and 18 are Obvious Over
`SoftWall Alone and in View of SoftHousing I-III, Arens,
`Velcro, and/or Okuno .......................................................................... 61
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 61
`
`Independent Claim 2 ................................................................. 67
`
`Dependent Claim 3.................................................................... 67
`
`Dependent Claims 4, 5 .............................................................. 68
`
`Dependent Claim 6.................................................................... 68
`
`Dependent Claims 7-10 ............................................................. 69
`
`Dependent Claims 12, 14 .......................................................... 69
`
`Dependent Claim 18 ................................................................. 70
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5: Claims 19-25 and 27 are Obvious Over MacAllen
`2008 in View of Stratton, Fischer, Reisenthel, Tolna, and/or
`EnduroFence ....................................................................................... 70
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Independent Claims 19, 22 ....................................................... 70
`
`Dependent Claim 20 ................................................................. 81
`
`Dependent Claim 21 ................................................................. 82
`
`Independent Claims 23, 27 ....................................................... 83
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`Page 4
`
`

`

`5.
`
`Dependent Claims 24, 25 .......................................................... 91
`
`X.
`
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 93
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`Page 5
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Chanel, Inc. as an expert witness in
`
`connection with U.S. Patent No. 9,689,161 (“the ’161 patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`Specifically, I have been asked to consider the patentability of claims 1-10, 12, 14,
`
`18-25 and 27 of the ’161 patent (the “Challenged Claims”) in view of the prior art,
`
`obviousness considerations, and the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art as it relates to the ’161 patent. I understand that this Declaration relates to a
`
`Petition for the above-captioned inter partes review (“IPR”) of the ’161 patent.
`
`2.
`
`I have set forth my academic and professional qualifications and
`
`relevant experience in Section II of this Declaration and have attached a copy of
`
`my curriculum vitae as Appendix A.
`
`3.
`
`In forming the opinions I express in this Declaration, I considered the
`
`materials referenced in Appendix B and the references discussed in this
`
`Declaration. Further, I relied on my own knowledge, training, and over 40 years of
`
`experience in designing, developing, teaching, and consulting in the industrial
`
`design industry.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at my standard hourly consulting rate for my
`
`time on this matter, plus reimbursement of expenses incurred during the course of
`
`this work. I have no financial stake in the outcome of this matter. My
`
`compensation is not contingent upon the results of my study, the substance of my
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`Page 6
`
`

`

`opinions, or the outcome of any proceeding involving the ’161 patent.
`
`5.
`
`I have not been retained by either Patent Owner or Petitioner Prior to
`
`this matter.
`
`6.
`
`It is my opinion that claims 1-10, 12, 14, 18-25 and 27 of the ’161
`
`patent are unpatentable in view of the grounds of unpatentability Chanel set forth
`
`in its Petition. The substance and bases of my opinions appear below.
`
`7.
`
`Unless otherwise noted, the statements made herein are based on my
`
`personal knowledge, and if called to testify about this declaration, I could and
`
`would do so competently and truthfully.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`8.
`
`I am an industrial designer and a design researcher and educator. I
`
`have a Bachelor’s Degree in Industrial Design from the University of Kansas,
`
`received in 1974, and a Master’s Degree in Product Design from North Carolina
`
`State University, received in 1982.
`
`9.
`
`By way of background, I’ve found the following excerpt from a 2004
`
`brochure from the Industrial Designer’s Society of America (IDSA) to be a helpful
`
`oversight of the field of industrial design (emphasis added):
`
`Industrial design is the profession that determines the form of a
`manufactured product, shaping it to fit the people who use it and the
`industrial processes that produce it . . . . Preparation for practicing
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Industrial Design requires a baccalaureate degree in that field.
`Industrial design links knowledge about technology and the visual
`arts with knowledge about people. In addition to a thorough
`understanding of the physical sciences, engineering principles,
`ergonomics, aesthetics, and industrial materials and processes,
`Industrial Designers should be well-grounded in the social sciences,
`such as psychology, sociology and anthropology, and the
`communication arts, such as photography, video, print and electronic
`media.
`I have worked as an industrial designer continuously for over 46 years
`10.
`
`since receiving my undergraduate degree in 1974. In 1980, I began my career as a
`
`full-time faculty member at various universities. From 1980 to 1984, I was an
`
`Assistant Professor of Industrial Design at Auburn University. From 1985 to 1986,
`
`I taught Product Design at UNITEC Institute of Technology in Auckland, New
`
`Zealand.
`
`11.
`
`I then returned to the United States and began teaching at the
`
`University of Kansas in 1987 as an associate professor. I am presently a full
`
`professor with the University of Kansas, and my formal title is Professor of
`
`Design, School of Architecture & Design. Also while at the University of Kansas, I
`
`was the Founding and Acting Director of the Center for Design Research from
`
`1991-2005.
`
`12. For 16 years, from 2000-2016, I served as a design consultant to
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Infusion Design. My creative activity there centered on collaborative design work
`
`in the transportation and consumer products industries. As a practicing
`
`professional, I have designed commercial and consumer products, transportation
`
`interiors, packaging, and exhibits for over 80 different clients. I have been retained
`
`to create designs for softgoods including boat awnings, bags, footwear, and
`
`competitive athletic clothing, multiple consumer products, and airplane and boat
`
`interiors.
`
`13. As a design professional, I have designed exhibits and displays for
`
`Western Publishing, Ranger Boats, Perceptive Software, Micron Corporation,
`
`Micro Design, Eagle Creek, The North Face, Bose, Chicagofest, Birkenstock,
`
`Beauty Brands, and the Milwaukee Art Museum, among others.
`
`14. Additionally, as a professional I have designed furniture for Coleman,
`
`Cramer, Brian Russel Designs (Auckland, NZ), Thomas Siebel (Chairman & CEO
`
`of C3.ai), Raaco (Denmark), and Rubbermaid. I have also designed numerous
`
`pieces of furniture for boats, yachts, and VIP Aircraft including cabinets, tables,
`
`chairs, divans and wall divider systems. Clients include Singapore Airlines, Ranger
`
`Boats, Armani (Embraer), Bell Helicopter, Fairchild-Dornier, Learjet, Nauter’s
`
`Swan, Hawker/Beechcraft, and others.
`
`15. My design research involves working with traditional craftspeople to
`
`provide designs that would improve marketability and increase margins. I have
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`Page 9
`
`

`

`designed chairs, tables, benches, lighting fixtures, and storage for craftspeople in
`
`the rural US, in South Africa, in India, and Nepal.
`
`16. As a design practitioner and educator, I have conducted and/or
`
`directed research into the study of markets from a product design perspective, as
`
`well as researching human factors and product usability. I have given presentations
`
`on design at several institutions around the world on topics including ergonomics,
`
`design education, design practice, and contemporary issues in the practice of
`
`industrial design.
`
`17. My work has been featured in numerous articles and texts, including
`
`the text “Think Wrong,” relating to design innovation and processes. “Think
`
`Wrong” features a story about my design process, focusing on my philosophy of
`
`working with and manipulating physical materials early in the design process to
`
`develop prototypes early in the design process.
`
`18.
`
`I have developed and designed numerous consumer products from
`
`nonconventional materials, such as bamboo and bamboo composites, including
`
`bicycles, skateboards, and paddleboards, in collaboration with HERO, a not-for-
`
`profit organization located in Greensboro, Alabama. Designs in this field challenge
`
`designers to develop workable designs within the limitations imposed by non-
`
`conventional materials and structural requirements of the product. In my role as a
`
`professor, I have taught an Industrial Design Studio course nearly every semester
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`Page 10
`
`

`

`since approximately 1980, which is a product-focused course. As part of the
`
`Industrial Design Studio, I have supervised groups of students developing a variety
`
`of different products.
`
`19. Over the years, I have served as an expert witness since approximately
`
`the year 2000, and have been retained as an expert witness in approximately thirty
`
`cases, including cases involving utility patents. As an expert witness, I have
`
`provided opinions relating to numerous consumer products. Many of the cases for
`
`which I have been retained have involved issues relating to alleged design patent
`
`infringement and alleged utility patent infringement and/or alleged invalidity.
`
`20.
`
`I am an inventor on 12 patents, including U.S. Patent No. 7,900,781
`
`for “Storage System,” U.S. Patent No. 5,490,676 for “Playing Cards with Gripping
`
`Surface,” U.S. Patent No. D600,928 for “Step Stool,” and U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,820,286 for “Protective Mask.”
`
`21.
`
`In Fall 2012, I was awarded a sabbatical to teach and conduct design
`
`research at the Industrial Design Centre at the Indian Institute of Technology-
`
`Bombay in Mumbai, India. I have been a facilitator and advisor to the Swedish
`
`Industrial Design Foundation’s Sommardesignkontoret. In 2009, I was one of only
`
`two American designers invited to participate in ICSID (International Congress of
`
`Societies of Industrial Design) Interdesign Citymove, Gellivare, Sweden. In 2016,
`
`I was a Visiting Professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Högskolan
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`Page 11
`
`

`

`i Halmstad (Halmstad University) in Halmstad, Sweden.
`
`22.
`
` In 2004, I was included in ID Magazine’s “Design 50.” The editors at
`
`ID chose to profile the work of 50 US designers in their January/February 2004
`
`Issue - one from each state. I was honored as the designer chosen to represent
`
`Kansas. ID is the largest and most prestigious journal in the US for our profession.
`
`23.
`
`I am a 2015-16 Fulbright Senior Scholar. I am also a 2019-2020
`
`Global Fulbright Scholar.
`
`24.
`
`I was one of “133 Distinguished Industrial Design Professionals and
`
`Professors” to sign the Amicus Brief supporting Apple in its case against Samsung
`
`before the Supreme Court. Other signatories included Dieter Rams, Norman
`
`Foster, Robert Brunner, Alexander Wang, Paula Scher, and Jasper Morrison.
`
`25.
`
`I have offered testimony or prepared expert opinions in numerous
`
`matters in the past five years.
`
`26. Based on these and other experiences, I believe that I am qualified to
`
`give opinions as an industrial designer skilled in the art with respect to the ’161
`
`patent, related to furniture and display design. Due to my experience outlined
`
`previously, I also believe I am qualified to give an opinion about what would have
`
`been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’161
`
`patent like those at issue here at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`Page 12
`
`

`

`III. APPLICABLE LAW
`
`27. This declaration addresses certain prior art publications that, in my
`
`opinion, anticipate pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102, or render obvious pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 (as those standards have been explained to me by counsel for
`
`Petitioner as set forth below).
`
`28.
`
`I understand the following law is applicable with regard to the validity
`
`or patentability of a United States patent relevant to this proceeding. I have applied
`
`this law to the facts in this matter in my analysis and in rendering my opinions.
`
`29.
`
`I have been further advised that a prior art publication or product
`
`“anticipates” a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if every element of that claim
`
`can be found in the publication or prior art product.
`
`30.
`
`I have been advised that a publication is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(a) if it was published more than one year prior to the priority date of a patent.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that a patent claim may be invalid under (pre-AIA) 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the subject matter claimed and the prior art
`
`are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
`
`matter pertains. I have been advised that, to determine if a patent is obvious, one
`
`considers: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the
`
`prior art and the claims; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`Page 13
`
`

`

`considerations such as commercial success and failure of others.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that multiple references, when combined, may render a
`
`patent claim obvious. I have been advised that the following rationales may
`
`support a conclusion of obviousness: (a) combining prior art elements according to
`
`known methods to yield predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known
`
`element for another to obtain predictable results; (c) use of a known technique to
`
`improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (d) applying a
`
`known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement
`
`to yield predictable results; (e) “obvious to try”—choosing from a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (f)
`
`known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either
`
`the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces
`
`if the variations are predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art; and (g) some
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led a person of
`
`ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`33.
`
`I further understand that obviousness requires a showing that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of
`
`the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention, and that the person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`Page 14
`
`

`

`doing so.
`
`IV. THE ’161 PATENT
`A. Brief Description
`34. The ’161 patent is directed to “flexible furniture,” and more
`specifically, expandable cellular structures that can serve as partitions “to
`subdivide and reshape space on a temporary basis.” Ex. 1001 at 1:53-54. The ’161
`patent does not focus on alleged improvements over prior art expandable
`honeycomb furniture. Instead, the ’161 patent focuses on alleged improvements
`over prior art furniture items that are “rigid, or have rigid frames, or are formed
`from rigid interconnected panels and . . . are relatively large, heavy, and
`cumbersome, and therefore difficult to set-up, take down, store, and transport.” Id.
`at 1:35-38. According to the ’161 patent, “the inherent rigidity of such items of
`furniture limits the extent to which they can be dynamically resized (extended or
`contracted) and reshaped to suit varying spaces and requirements, or readily moved
`around for relocation, or storage. Additionally, such furniture items, particularly in
`the form of partitions are typically formed from opaque panels which inhibit the
`transmission of light, therefore necessitating increased use of, or rearrangement of
`artificial lighting to restore adequate lighting levels.” Id. at 1:42-51.
`35. One embodiment disclosed in the ’161 patent is an expandable wall
`with a pair of supports at opposite ends of the cellular structure that may be moved
`apart to expand the length of the core. The supports are flexible and may be folded
`on themselves or attached in seriatim using fasteners such as Velcro. This
`embodiment is shown in Figs. 4-6 below, with the supports highlighted in blue.
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`Page 15
`
`

`

`36. The specification notes that variations in materials, configurations,
`and dimensions “will be apparent” to those of skill in the art:
`
`In the above embodiments, the core has been made from a light
`weight paper material, although it will be apparent that alternative
`materials may be used that fulfil the same functional requirements.
`For example, it is possible to utilize a heavier weight paper material . .
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`Page 16
`
`

`

`. or a nonwoven textile material such as a plastic . . . . [or] a paper
`laminated with a plastic film to provide a composite material.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 5:65-6:6.
`
`It will be apparent from the various embodiments described above that
`the provision of the cellular structure to form the core and the
`releasable fastenings provided at the end panels allow for a variety of
`configurations to be provided.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 8:33-37.
`
`As indicated above, the dimensions of the core may be adjusted to suit
`particular requirements, ranging from a single row of voids to provide
`a thin or narrow partition, to a relatively wide cellular structure with
`multiple rows of voids to provide seating or table like surfaces.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 8:40-44.
`
`Although the invention has been described with reference to certain
`specific embodiments, various modifications thereof will be apparent
`to those skilled in the art without departing from the spirit and scope
`of the invention as outlined in the claims appended hereto.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 16:32-36.
`37. Another embodiment disclosed in the ’161 patent is an expandable
`wall with vertical supports comprising bases (602) and dowels (600) positioned
`within voids or cells (30) of the partition (410), as shown in Fig. 48:
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`Page 17
`
`

`

`Ex. 1001, at Fig. 48.
`
`38. The corresponding portion of the specification describes this
`
`embodiment as follows:
`
`Further support may be provided along the length of the partition by
`utilizing the cells 30 that extend generally vertically when the
`partition is deployed. Dowels 600 are inserted in to the cells 30 and
`connected to bases 602 at spaced locations along the desired
`configuration of the partition 410. Such an arrangement is shown in
`FIG. 48 where it can be seen that the dowel 602 and bases 600 are
`utilized to constrain the partition 410 in to a serpentine path and at the
`same time provide lateral stability for the partition. No modification to
`the partition 410 is required to utilize the additional support provided
`by the dowel 600 and the number of dowels and their location may be
`adjusted to suit the particular requirements.
`Ex. 1001, at 14:14-26.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`39. The Challenged Claims were allowed without any rejections over
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`Page 18
`
`

`

`prior art. It is my understanding that, except for Tolna, the references relied on in
`
`this Petition were not cited or considered during prosecution. I understand that
`
`Tolna was disclosed, but the Examiner did not reject any of the Challenged Claims
`
`over Tolna.
`
`40. On May 3, 2017, the Examiner rejected the Challenged Claims for
`
`non-statutory double patenting over claims in multiple other patents filed by
`
`Applicants. The Examiner stated that certain differences between the claims—e.g.,
`
`“recitation that two walls may be joined together vs two walls actually being
`
`recited as joined together; size; number of supports, etc.”—were obvious and did
`
`not render the claims patentably distinct. Id. Applicants traversed the double
`
`patenting rejections by filing a terminal disclaimer on November 18, 2016. Ex.
`
`1002 at 149.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`41.
`
`In the analysis contained herein I have used the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the claim terms.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`42.
`
`I have been informed that a person of ordinary skill in the art is a
`
`hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of
`
`the invention. I understand that, in determining the level of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, the following factors may be considered: (1) the type of problems
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`Page 19
`
`

`

`encountered in the art; (2) the prior art solutions to those problems; (3) the rapidity
`
`with which innovations are made; (4) the sophistication of the technology; and (5)
`
`the education level of active workers in the field.
`
`43.
`
`In rendering my opinions, I have been asked to consider the level of
`
`ordinary skill possessed by those working in the field of the invention of the ’161
`
`patent as of the date of the invention.
`
`44.
`
`I have been instructed to assume that Challenged Claims 1-10, 12, 14
`
`and 18 have a priority date no earlier than November 28, 2005.
`
`45.
`
`I have been instructed to assume that Challenged Claims 19-25 and 27
`
`have a priority date no earlier than December 23, 2009.
`
`46.
`
`In this case, it is my opinion that a designer of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the alleged invention (“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 significant experience in the field could substitute for
`
`formal education.
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`Page 20
`
`

`

`VII. BACKGROUND
`
`47.
`
`In this section I provide some background information relating with
`
`respect to furniture and display design to provide better context for assessing the
`
`’161 patent in view of the prior art.
`
`A. Types of Art that a POSITA Would Review
`
`48. Furniture and/or display designers are generally familiar with the
`
`“prior art”, including patented designs. However, because of the time it takes
`
`generally to go through the patent process, patented designs are often already
`
`“dated”. Most often designers will get inspiration from designs we find in design
`
`and architecture publications, at museums and galleries, and even at tradeshows
`
`and exhibitions. In the 2004-2009 timeframe, like today, designers would get new
`
`sources of inspiration from online design and portfolio sites, as well as daily design
`
`updates and blogs.
`
`49. U.S. Patents: Designers may look to patents or published patent
`
`applications to find ideas for inspiration.
`
`50. Foreign Patents: Designers may look to patents or published patent
`
`applications in foreign countries to find ideas for inspiration. For example, a
`
`designer looking to design a divider partition that had a light, translucent quality
`
`would be motivated to research traditional Japanese shoji screens and look for new
`
`ideas, developments, and innovations in this product area. He or she would be
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`Page 21
`
`

`

`interested in Japanese, or more broadly, East Asian patents and applications in
`
`Shoji screens, rice paper screens and partitions, and lightweight folding dividers.
`
`51. Trade Shows: In the design industry, trade shows and competitions
`
`are an important source of information. For example, the Design Beyond East and
`
`West tradeshow at which the Applicants presented SoftHousing is an example of
`
`trade show that designers would look to for inspiration.
`
`52. Hard Copy Publications: A POSITA will also review publications
`
`that were traditionally available in hard copy, and may now be available online as
`
`well, such as Canadian Architect.
`
`53. Online Publications: In the relevant timeframe, POSITA often
`
`looked to online publications, such as Core 77, one of the online publications that
`
`ran an article describing Soft Housing.
`
`54. Design and Portfolio Sites: One example of an online design and
`
`portfolio site is Behance. https://www.behance.net/.
`
`B. General Background in the Prior Art
`
`55. Honeycomb materials have been in use in furniture, industrial design,
`
`and various other applications long before the ’161 patent. Some known uses
`
`include window shades, light fixtures, ceiling and wall panels, collapsible
`
`containers, and expandable benches, chairs, and tables. Ex. 1023, U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,307,768 (window shade); Ex. 1011 (Okuno) (light fixture); Ex. 1024,
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`Page 22
`
`

`

`JPH06299629A (wall panel attachment); Ex. 1025, JPH0520204Y2 (Sankyo)
`
`(chairs and sofas); Ex. 1026, U.S. Patent No. 6,427,409 (ceiling and wall panels);
`
`Ex. 1027, U.S. Patent. No. 2,807,405A (collapsible containers). A few examples
`
`are included here:
`
`56. At the time of the application that led to the ’161 Patent, it was well-
`
`known to people of ordinary skill in the art that honeycomb structures can be
`
`lightweight, expandable and flexible, modified to various sizes, and can have
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`Page 23
`
`

`

`sound-proofing and weather-proofing properties, while also allowing light to pass
`
`through. Ex. 1023, U.S. Pat. 4,307,768 (describing properties of honeycomb); Ex.
`
`1011 (Okuno). The prior art made use of those characteristics. For example,
`
`honeycomb was a desirable material for lamps and lighting fixtures, which relied
`
`upon the passage of light through the honeycomb, and was a desirable material for
`
`window shades because it provided passage of light simultaneous with weather-
`
`proofing properties. The lightweight, expandable and flexible characteristics of
`
`honeycomb made it a desirable material for use in expandable seating, partitions
`
`and storage containers.
`
`57. For example, JPH0520204Y2, a Japanese patent application by
`
`Sankyo Co. Ltd. published in 1993 (“Sankyo”), disclosed flexible and expandable
`
`furniture, and described using a “honeycomb structure” to accomplish this:
`
`[A]n object of this invention is to provide a chair or sofa that can be changed
`into any shape by being expanded and contracted or bent to fit a size and
`shape of a location where it is to be used