U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Chanel, Inc.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`Molo Design, Ltd.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00545
`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,689,161
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 2
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 2
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information ......................... 3
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ...................................... 4
`A. Grounds for Standing ............................................................................ 4
`B.
`Identification of Challenge .................................................................... 4
`1.
`Prior Art on Which the Challenge is Based ................................ 4
`2.
`Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenge is Based ................. 7
`C. No Basis To Deny Institution Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ..................... 8
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................... 8
`A. General Background .............................................................................. 8
`B.
`Primary Prior Art References .............................................................. 10
`1.
`SoftHousing ............................................................................... 10
`2.
`SoftWall ..................................................................................... 15
`3. MacAllen 2008 .......................................................................... 16
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’161 PATENT .......................................................... 16
`A.
`Specification ........................................................................................ 16
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 19
`C.
`Priority Date of the Challenged Claims .............................................. 20
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 22
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 22
`VIII. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ........................................................ 23
`A. Ground 1: Claims 2, 6-8, 10, 12, 14 are Anticipated by
`SoftHousing I ....................................................................................... 23
`1.
`Independent Claim 2 ................................................................. 23
`i
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Dependent Claim 6 ................................................................... 27
`2.
`Dependent Claims 7, 8, 10 ........................................................ 28
`3.
`Dependent Claims 12, 14 .......................................................... 29
`4.
`Dependent Claim 18 ................................................................. 31
`5.
`B. Ground 2: Claims 1-10, 12, 14 and 18 are Obvious Over
`SoftHousing I Alone and in View of SoftHousing II-III, Arens,
`and/or Okuno ....................................................................................... 32
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 33
`2.
`Independent Claim 2 ................................................................. 39
`3.
`Dependent Claim 3 ................................................................... 39
`4.
`Dependent Claims 4, 5 .............................................................. 39
`5.
`Dependent Claim 6 ................................................................... 42
`6.
`Dependent Claims 7-10 ............................................................. 42
`7.
`Dependent Claims 12, 14 .......................................................... 43
`8.
`Dependent Claim 18 ................................................................. 44
`C. Ground 3: Claims 2, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 are Anticipated by
`SoftWall ............................................................................................... 44
`1.
`Independent Claim 2 ................................................................. 44
`2.
`Dependent Claim 6 ................................................................... 48
`3.
`Dependent Claims 8, 10 ............................................................ 48
`4.
`Dependent Claims 12, 14 .......................................................... 49
`5.
`Dependent Claim 18 ................................................................. 50
`D. Ground 4: Claims 1-10, 12, 14 and 18 are Obvious Over
`SoftWall Alone and in View of SoftHousing I-III, Arens, and/or
`Okuno .................................................................................................. 51
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 52
`2.
`Independent Claim 2 ................................................................. 57
`3.
`Dependent Claim 3 ................................................................... 57
`4.
`Dependent Claims 4, 5 .............................................................. 57
`5.
`Dependent Claim 6 ................................................................... 58
`
`ii
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Dependent Claims 7-10 ............................................................. 58
`6.
`Dependent Claims 12, 14 .......................................................... 59
`7.
`Dependent Claim 18 ................................................................. 59
`8.
`Ground 5: Claims 19-25 and 27 are Obvious Over MacAllen
`2008 in View of Stratton, Fischer, Reisenthel, Tolna, and/or
`EnduroFence ....................................................................................... 59
`1.
`Independent Claims 19, 22 ....................................................... 59
`2.
`Dependent Claim 20 ................................................................. 71
`3.
`Dependent Claim 21 ................................................................. 72
`4.
`Independent Claims 23, 27 ....................................................... 73
`5.
`Dependent Claims 24, 25 .......................................................... 81
`IX. CO-PENDING DISTRICT COURT ACTION SHOULD NOT
`PRECLUDE INSTITUTION ........................................................................ 82
`A.
`The Potential for a Stay Favors Institution (Factor 1) ........................ 83
`B.
`The Lack of a Scheduled Trial Date Favors Institution (Factor
`2) .......................................................................................................... 85
`Investment in the District Court Action Is Minimal, Favoring
`Institution (Factor 3) ............................................................................ 87
`The Petition and District Court Action Raise Unique Issues,
`Favoring Institution (Factor 4) ............................................................ 88
`The Parties Are Identical, Favoring Institution (Factor 5) .................. 89
`The Merits of Petitioner’s Challenge Favor Institution (Factor
`6) .......................................................................................................... 90
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 90
`
`
`E.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`F.
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ....................................... 82, 90
`Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00204, Paper 11 (PTAB Jun. 19, 2020) .............................................. 90
`Apple v. Maxell,
`IPR2020-00200, Paper 11, 22 (PTAB July 15, 2020) ........................................ 89
`Apple v. Seven Networks,
`IPR2020-00235, Paper 10 (PTAB July 28, 2020) ........................................ 89, 90
`GES.M.B.H v. Advanced Bionics AG,
`IPR2020-00190, Paper 15 (PTAB June 3, 2020) ............................................... 90
`Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10377 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2021) ............................. 83, 84
`KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`Lectrosonics inc. v. ZaxCom, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 (PTAB 2020) ............................................................ 22
`Molo Design, Ltd. v. Chanel, Inc.,
`No. 1:21-cv-01578-VEC (S.D.N.Y.) .................................................................... 2
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC,
`735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2013) ............................................... 44, 72, 81
`Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Co.,
`681 F. App’x 904 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................... 32, 51
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 22
`
`iv
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Progenity, Inc. v. Natera, Inc.,
`IPR2021-00279, Paper 12 (PTAB June 11, 2021) ............................................... 8
`Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Corp.,
`No. 16-CV-9278 (JPO), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178856 (S.D.N.Y. Oct.
`27, 2017) ............................................................................................................. 83
`Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co.,
`357 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................ 39, 42, 67, 80
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................ 5-7, 12
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19 .................................................................................................. 1
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) ............................................................................................. 86
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ..................................................................................................... 8
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq. .............................................................................................. 1
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) ................................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ....................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R.§§ 42.100(b) ............................................................................................. 22
`37 C.F.R. §42.104 ................................................................................................ 4, 23
`Access to Justice in the Age of COVID-19, 38
`https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1445356/download (last visited Jan.
`10, 2022) ............................................................................................................. 86
`U.S. District Courts Combined Civil and Criminal Federal Court
`Management Statistics,
`https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/fcms_na_distcom
`parison0630.2021.pdf (last visited Jan. 10, 2022) .............................................. 86
`
`v
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 9,689,161 (“’161”)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,689,161
`Declaration of Lance Gordon Rake
`Affidavit of Duncan Hall - Certification of Records by Internet
`Archive regarding Exhibits 1005, 1007, 1022 and 1042
`DBEW, “Golden Prize” (“SoftHousing I”) published online as of
`May 9, 2004 and archived at Internet Archive Wayback Machine,
`at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20040509111623/http:/www.hansse
`mcompe.com:80/english/PRI/2003/2003_gp02.asp, certification
`of such can be found at Exhibit 1004 pp. 1-2, 4-6
`DBEW, “Collection of Winning Works of DBEW International
`Design Competition,” Tianjin University Press, (“SoftHousing
`II”) published in March 2004 with certified translation
`Common Ground, “First Step Soft Housing” (“SoftHousing III”)
`published online as of November 6, 2003 and archived at Internet
`Archive Wayback Machine, at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20031106051417/http:/www.commo
`nground.org/org_info/media/press_releases/soft.jpg, certification
`of such can be found at Exhibit 1004 pp. 1-2, 15-16
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`JPS4987173A (Okuno 1974) (“Okuno”) with certified translation
`[PRIORART_00000691-0698]
`Reserved
`U.S. Patent No. 4,493,174A (Arens 1985) (“Arens”)
`[PRIORART_00000209-0212]
`Document titled “Soft Housing,” produced by Molo in related
`district court action [MOLO_00004200-4204]
`Depictions of Soft Housing First Step produced by Molo in
`related district court action [MOLO_00004207;
`MOLO_00004208]
`SoftHousing I and II references
`[PRIORART_00000768-0772; PRIORART_00000666-0675]
`vi
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Description
`Soft Housing reference published online at
`https://blog.naver.com/greensoul35/60007413333
`[PRIORART_00000831; PRIORART_00000779]
`Reserved
`Reserved
`DBEW, The 3rd DBEW International Design Competition, at 38-
`41, produced by Molo in related district court action
`[MOLO_00004196-4199]
`DBEW International Design Competition 2003 references
`[PRIORART_00000733; PRIORART_00000777-0778;
`PRIORART_00000775; PRIORART_00000682;
`PRIORART_00000679; PRIORART_00000765;
`PRIORART_00000774; PRIORART_00000767;
`PRIORART_00000773; PRIORART_00000766;
`PRIORART_00000810; PRIORART_00000794-0795]
`Soft Housing First Step articles and press releases published
`online on Common Ground’s website in 2003 and 2004 and
`archived at Internet Archive Wayback Machine, at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20040403074009/http:/www.firststep
`housing.org:80/
`andhttps://web.archive.org/web/20040405021546/http:/www.com
`monground.org/org_info/media/press_releases/2003.10.28.html,
`certification of such can be found at Exhibit 1004 pp. 1-2, 17-24
`U.S. Patent No. 4,307,768 (Anderson 1981) (“Anderson”)
`JPH06299629 (Inayama 1994) and translation
`JPH0520204Y2 (Sankyo 1990) (“Sankyo”) with certified
`translation [PRIORART_00000798-0807]
`U.S. Patent No. 6,427,409 (Colson 2002)
`U.S. Patent No. 2,807,405A (Lambert 1957) (“Lambert”)
`Architectural Record, Vol. 192, No. 9, September, 2004
`(“SoftWall”) [excerpts from PRIORART_00000319]
`Scheduling Order in Molo Design, Ltd. v. Chanel, Inc., No. 21-
`cv-1578 (S.D.N.Y.), dated April 22, 2021 (Dkt. 27)
`Joint Disputed Claim Terms Chart, filed in Molo Design, Ltd. v.
`Chanel, Inc., No. 21-cv-1578 (S.D.N.Y.), dated September, 24,
`2021 (Dkt. 38)
`Lex Machina Report for S.D.N.Y.
`
`Exhibit
`1017
`
`1018
`1019
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`1025
`
`1026
`1027
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`vii
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Description
`Declaration of Shannon Bjorklund
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Molo’s Infringement Contentions in Molo Design, Ltd. v. Chanel,
`Inc., No. 21-cv-1578 (S.D.N.Y.), dated June 14, 2021 (excerpts)
`U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. US2008/0023156A1 (“MacAllen
`2008”) [PRIORART_00000028-0047]
`U.S. Patent No. 7,217,061B2 (Stratton 2007) (“Stratton”)
`[PRIORART_00000213-0225]
`USD353946S (Fischer 1995) (“Fischer”)
`[PRIORART_00000628-0629]
`U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2005/0076552A1 (Tolna 2005)
`(“Tolna”) [PRIORART_00000856-0862]
`DM/057,813 (Reisenthel) (“Reisenthel”)
`[PRIORART_00000613-0616]
`MarkersInc.com, “Enduro Fence Package-150’” (“EnduroFence”)
`published online as of August 27, 2008 and archived at Internet
`Archive Wayback machine at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20080827191131/http://www.markersinc.com/e
`nduro-fence-kit-enduro150.aspx, certification of such can be found at
`Exhibit 1004 pp. 1-2, 48-49
`MacAllen et al., App. 11/287,195, filed on November 28, 2005
`MacAllen et al., Provisional App. 60/681,972, filed on May 18,
`2005
`
`Exhibit
`1032
`1033
`1034
`1035
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1045
`1046
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Chanel, Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter partes review (“IPR”)
`
`I.
`
`of claims 1-10, 12, 14, 18-25 and 27 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`9,689,161 (“the ’161 Patent”) (Ex. 1001) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19 and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq. The ’161 patent, titled “Flexible Furniture System,” claims
`
`articles of flexible furniture that have an expandable “cellular” or “honeycomb”
`
`core,1 such as the following partition with vertical supports:
`
`
`1 Many prior art references, including publications associated with the named
`
`inventors of the ’161 patent, use the term “honeycomb” to describe cellular
`
`structures like those disclosed in the ’161 patent, even when such structures have
`
`cells that are not hexagonal in shape. The ’161 patent uses the term “cellular.”
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`Expandable honeycomb structures have been used for decades, and the
`
`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`subject matter of the Challenged Claims was well-known in the art. Some of the
`
`closest prior art references describe earlier work by the named inventors and were
`
`not before the PTO during prosecution of the ’161 patent. Petitioner requests that
`
`the Board institute trial and find the Challenged Claims unpatentable pursuant to
`
`the Grounds herein.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner identifies Chanel, Inc. as the
`
`real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The named inventors Todd P. MacAllen and Stephanie P. Forsythe
`
`(“Applicants”) assigned the ’161 patent to Molo Design, Ltd. (“Patent Owner” or
`
`“Molo”). Ex. 1001 at 1. On February 22, 2021, Molo filed a district court action
`
`against Chanel, Molo Design, Ltd. v. Chanel, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-01578-VEC
`
`(S.D.N.Y.), alleging infringement of the ’161 patent and three other patents that are
`
`the subject of separate, concurrently filed, IPR petitions. Chanel was served in the
`
`district court action on February 26, 2021.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information
`Lead Counsel
`Backup Counsel
`
`Gina Cornelio
`Registration No. 64,336
`DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
`1400 Wewatta Street, Ste. 400
`Denver, CO 80202-5549
`Tel: (303) 352-1170
`Fax: (303) 629-3450
`cornelio.gina@dorsey.com
`
`
`
`Mark A. Miller
`Registration No. 44,944
`DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
`111 South Main Street, Suite 2100
`Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2176
`Tel: (801) 933-4068
`Fax: (801) 933-7373
`miller.mark@dorsey.com
`
`Geoffrey M. Godfrey (pro hac vice to
`be filed)
`DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
`Columbia Center
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6100
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Tel: (206) 903-8800
`Fax: (206) 299-3849
`godfrey.geoff@dorsey.com
`
`Shannon L. Bjorklund (pro hac vice to
`be filed)
`DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
`50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (612) 340-2600
`Fax: (612) 677-3086
`bjorklund.shannon@dorsey.com
`
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service of documents to the email addresses
`
`of the counsel identified above.
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’161 patent is
`
`available for IPR and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR
`
`challenging the claims of the ’161 patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`Identification of Challenge
`B.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§42.104(b) and (b)(1), Petitioner requests IPR of the
`
`Challenged Claims and that the Board cancel the same as unpatentable. The ’161
`
`patent matured from U.S. Patent Application No. 15/067,541, filed on March 11,
`
`2016, and claims the benefit of Provisional Application No. 60/681,972 filed on
`
`May 18, 2005. As explained in Section V.C below, the Challenged Claims are not
`
`entitled to the May 18, 2005 priority date.
`
`Prior Art on Which the Challenge is Based
`1.
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art:2
`
`
`2 Ex. 1004 is an affidavit authenticating all Internet Archive records cited in this
`
`Petition. For convenience, frequently-cited webpages from Ex. 1004 are also
`
`marked as separate exhibits. For example, SoftHousing I appears at pages 4-6 of
`
`Ex. 1004, and separately as Ex. 1005.
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1005 - DBEW, “Golden Prize” (“SoftHousing I”) was published
`
`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`online as of May 9, 2004, and is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`Exhibit 1005 was archived at Internet Archive Wayback Machine, at
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20040509111623/http:/www.hanssemcompe.com:80/e
`
`nglish/PRI/2003/2003_gp02.asp. See also infra IV.B.1; Ex. 1004 at 4-6.
`
`Exhibit 1006 - DBEW, “Collection of Winning Works of DBEW
`
`International Design Competition,” Tianjin University Press, (“SoftHousing II”)
`
`was published in March 2004, and is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`See also infra IV.B.1.
`
`Exhibit 1007 - Common Ground, “First Step Soft Housing” (“SoftHousing
`
`III”) was published online as of November 6, 2003, and is prior art under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(b). Exhibit 1007 was archived at Internet Archive Wayback
`
`Machine, at
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20031106051417/http:/www.commonground.org/org_
`
`info/media/press_releases/soft.jpg. See also infra IV.B.1; Ex. 1004 at 15-16.
`
`Exhibit 1028 - Architectural Record, “Flexible textile walls expand and
`
`compress to create rooms-within-a-room,” Vol. 192, No. 9 (“SoftWall”) was
`
`published by McGraw-Hill in September 2004, and is prior art under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. §§102(b). See also infra IV.B.2.
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1037 - U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2008/0023156 A1 (“MacAllen
`
`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`2008”) was published January 31, 2008, and is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102(b) for claims 19-25 and 27. See also infra IV.B.3.
`
`Exhibit 1011 - Japanese Patent Application Pub. JPS4987173A (“Okuno”)
`
`was published August 21, 1974, and is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§102(a)
`
`and 102(b).
`
`Exhibit 1013 - U.S. Patent No. 4,493,174 (“Arens”), issued on January 15,
`
`1985, and is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§102(a), 102(b), and 102(e).
`
`Exhibit 1038 - U.S. Patent No. 7,217,061 (“Stratton”), issued on May 15,
`
`2007, and is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§102(a), 102(b), and 102(e) for
`
`claims 19-25 and 27.
`
`Exhibit 1039 - U.S. Patent No. D353,946 (“Fischer”), issued on January 3,
`
`1995, and is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§102(a) and 102(b).
`
`Exhibit 1040 - U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2005/0076552 A1 (“Tolna”)
`
`was published April 14, 2005, and is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§102(a)
`
`and 102(b) for claims 19-25 and 27.
`
`Exhibit 1041 - Int’l Design DM/057 813 (“Reisenthel”), registered
`
`December 28, 2000, is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§102(a) and 102(b).
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1042 - MarkersInc.com, “Enduro Fence Package-150’”
`
`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`(“EnduroFence”) was published online as of August 27, 2008, and is prior art
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§102(a) and 102(b) for claims 19-25 and 27. Exhibit
`
`1042 was archived at Internet Archive Wayback Machine, at
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20080827191131/http://www.markersinc.com/enduro-
`
`fence-kitenduro150.aspx.
`
`2.
`
`Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenge is Based
`
`Ground Statute Challenged
`Claims
`2, 6, 7, 8,
`10, 12, 14
`
`§102
`
`1
`
`Prior Art
`
`SoftHousing I
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`§103
`
`§102
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`1-10, 12,
`14, 18
`
`SoftHousing I in view of SoftHousing II-III,
`Arens, and/or Okuno
`
`2, 6, 8, 10,
`12, 14
`
`SoftWall
`
`1-10, 12,
`14, 18
`
`SoftWall in view of SoftHousing I-III, Arens,
`and/or Okuno
`
`19-25, 27 MacAllen 2008 in view of Stratton, Fischer,
`Reisenthel, Tolna, and/or EnduroFence
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`C. No Basis to Deny Institution Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`The Board should not exercise its §325(d) discretion to deny institution. The
`
`grounds raised by this Petition are not the same or substantially the same as the art
`
`and arguments raised during prosecution. Except for Tolna, the references relied on
`
`in this Petition were not considered during prosecution, and are not cumulative of
`
`the references considered during prosecution. Tolna was disclosed, but the
`
`Examiner did not reject any of the Challenged Claims over Tolna. Applicants
`
`disclosed a reference (Pedersen) that described Soft Housing, but that reference
`
`was published after the alleged critical date, unlike SoftHousing I-III, and was not
`
`the basis of any rejection or otherwise discussed during prosecution. Thus, the
`
`Grounds presented herein are not precluded under §325(d), and the Board should
`
`institute an IPR. See Progenity, Inc. v. Natera, Inc., IPR2021-00279, Paper 12, at
`
`42 (PTAB June 11, 2021).
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`A. General Background
`The ’161 patent claims articles of flexible furniture that have an expandable
`
`cellular (honeycomb) core. Expandable honeycomb structures, including furniture,
`
`had been known for decades before Applicants filed their earliest patent
`
`application. For example, honeycomb panels have been used in window blinds,
`
`lampshades, expandable partitions, and even benches, chairs, and tables. A few
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`such examples are depicted below:
`
`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`See e.g., Ex. 1023 (window shade); Ex. 1011 (light fixture); Ex. 1024 (wall panel);
`
`Ex. 1026 (ceiling and wall panels); Ex. 1027 (Lambert) (collapsible containers);
`
`Ex. 1025 (chairs and sofas).
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`It was well-known in the art that honeycomb structures can be lightweight,
`
`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`expandable and flexible, modified to various sizes, and can have sound-proofing
`
`and weather-proofing properties, while also allowing light to pass through. See
`
`Declaration of Professor Lance Rake, Ex. 1003 ¶¶55–58. The prior art utilized
`
`these properties, for example, with lanterns relying on the passage of light through
`
`the honeycomb, window shades relying on the insulative properties, and seating
`
`and partitions relying on the lightweight and expandable properties of the
`
`honeycomb. Id., ¶¶55–57.
`
`Primary Prior Art References
`B.
`This Petition relies upon three primary prior art references, none of which
`
`was before the PTO during prosecution of the ’161 patent.
`
`1.
`SoftHousing
`In 2003, the named inventors on the ’161 patent, Stephanie Forsythe and
`
`Todd MacAllen, submitted a flexible honeycomb furniture design called “Soft
`
`Housing” to the DBEW (Design Beyond East and West) International Design
`
`Competition. DBEW was an annual competition in its third year in 2003. More
`
`than 500 designers took part in the competition, and attendees included “[a]bout 40
`
`reporters and journalists from Korea’s top newspapers and magazines in the
`
`architecture, interiors and design fields.” Ex. 1021 at 14.
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`The DBEW competition was organized through a website published by the
`
`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`sponsor, HANSSEM Co., Ltd., an internationally known furniture and home
`
`furnishing company. The website published extensive information regarding the
`
`2003 DBEW competition, including content regarding the winning submissions.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1021 (collecting DBEW International Design Competition articles).
`
`SoftHousing I, a webpage highlighting Forsythe and MacAllen’s submission,
`
`was published on the DBEW website at least as early as May 9, 2004. Ex. 1005.
`
`SoftHousing I includes images and a detailed written description of Forsythe and
`
`MacAllen’s submission. SoftHousing I discloses “soft, flexible honeycomb
`
`structures, each made from 500 layers of a light, strong, white *paper like
`
`material” and “[f]lexible partition walls made from the same material” Ex. 1005.
`
`SoftHousing I further discloses honeycomb structures made from “fire retardant
`
`treated white tissue paper” and “sheets of fine polyethylene fiber.” Id.
`
`SoftHousing II is another publication disclosing Forsythe and MacAllen’s
`
`2003 DBEW submission. SoftHousing II is a book titled “Collection of Winning
`
`Works of DBEW International Design Competition,” published by Tianjin
`
`University Press in March 2004. Ex. 1006. SoftHousing II features many of the
`
`same images and written description from SoftHousing I. Id. at 10-12.
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`In the related district court action, Molo produced additional publications
`
`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`that include some of this same content. See Ex. 1020; Ex. 1014.3 Excerpts from
`
`SoftHousing I and II were also re-published in various other locations online and in
`
`hard copy. See, e.g., Ex. 1016; Ex. 1017.
`
`The following are examples of images included in SoftHousing I and II:4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 On information and belief, these Molo-produced publications are also prior art
`
`under pre-AIA §102(b).
`
`4 This Petition uses higher resolution images produced by Molo in the co-pending
`
`district court action. These are the same images published in SoftHousing I and
`
`SoftHousing II.
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Ex. 1005; Ex. 1006.
`
`Forsythe and MacAllen also submitted a Soft Housing design to the 2003
`
`First Step Housing Design Competition, organized by Common Ground
`
`Community and the Architectural League of New York. SoftHousing III, a
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`webpage highlighting their submission, was published on the Common Ground
`
`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`website at least as early as November 6, 2003. SoftHousing III includes some of
`
`the same images as SoftHousing I and II, and further discloses an expandable
`
`honeycomb structure with “(Velcro) fastenings [that] attach [the] unit to [a]
`
`perimeter wall”:
`
`Exhibit 1007 (highlighting added).
`
`SoftHousing III was also featured in a press release published by Common
`
`Ground on October 28, 2003. See Ex. 1022; Ex. 1015.
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`2.
`SoftWall
`SoftWall is another prior art publication disclosing work by the named
`
`inventors of the ’161 patent. Published in Architectural Record magazine in
`
`September 2004, SoftWall discloses “[f]lexible textile walls [that] expand and
`
`compress to create rooms-within-a-room,” such as the wall depicted in the
`
`following image:
`
`Ex. 1028. SoftWall discloses 4-foot and 6-foot tall versions of the expandable wall
`
`and explains how it “utilizes the same honeycomb structure” as MacAllen and
`
`Forsythe’s Soft House, described above. Id.
`
`15
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`3. MacAllen 2008
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2008/0023156 A1 (“MacAllen 2008”), titled
`
`“Flexible Furniture System,” is related to the ’161 patent. MacAllen 2008 is the
`
`published version of Application No. 11/742,984, which later issued as the ’366
`
`patent – one of three other patents that are the subject of separate, concurrently
`
`filed, IPR petitions.
`
`MacAllen 2008 is prior art for Challenged Claims 19-25 and 27 because
`
`those claims include new matter added in a continuation-in-part application and
`
`have a priority date no earlier than December 23, 2009. See infra V.C.
`
`Like the ’161 patent, MacAllen 2008 discloses expandable partitions and
`
`walls and further discloses how the partitions can be “stacked on top of o