Trials@uspto.gov Paper 61
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: April 22, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ALLSTEEL INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`DIRTT ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION ON REMAND
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: April 22, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ALLSTEEL INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`DIRTT ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION ON REMAND
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner, Allsteel Inc., filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
`review of claims 1, 4–11, 13–23, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’901 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, DIRTT
`Environmental Solutions Ltd., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 9
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary
`Response, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1, 4–7, 9, 10, 14–
`20, and 25, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314. Paper 10 (“Institution Decision”).
`We did not institute an inter partes review with respect to claims 8, 11, 13,
`and 21–23. Id. Subsequent to institution, Petitioner filed a Request for
`Rehearing with respect to claim 8. Paper 16 (“Req. Reh’g”). We denied
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing. Paper 23 (“Decision Req. Reh’g”).
`Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 24 (“PO Resp.”))
`and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 30 (“Pet. Reply”)). The parties also filed
`motions to exclude certain evidence. Papers 34 and 36. An oral hearing was
`held. Paper 43 (“Tr. 1”). Per a Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 318(a), we determined that Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 1, 4–7, 9, 10, 14–20, and 25 are unpatentable. Paper 44
`(“Final Written Decision”). Patent Owner filed a notice of appeal with the
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). While the
`appeal was pending, on April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held that a
`decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on fewer than
`all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348,
`1354 (2018). Accordingly, the Federal Circuit vacated our Final Written
`Decision in this proceeding and remanded “to allow the Board to issue a
`final written decision consistent with SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`1348 (2018).” DIRTT Envtl. Sols. Ltd. v. Allsteel Inc., 731 F. App’x 980,
`981 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Exs. 3001, 3002.
`In light of the Federal Circuit’s vacatur and remand, we modified our
`Institution Decision to institute on all of the challenged claims and all of the
`grounds presented in the Petition. Paper 46. In particular, we instituted on
`Petitioner’s assertion that claim 8 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`as obvious over Raith and Yu; claims 11 and 13 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Raith and EVH; and claims 21–23 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Raith and
`MacGregor. Id.
`Petitioner requested limited briefing and a limited Dr. Beaman
`declaration regarding claims 8, 11, 13, and 21–23 pursuant to the Office
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, August 2018 Update, 83 Fed. Reg. 39989 (Aug.
`2018) (providing link to Trial Practice Guide Update:
`https://go.usa.gov/xU7GP (“Trial Practice Guide Update”)). Paper 47
`(“Order”). We granted Petitioner’s request and authorized both parties to
`file supplemental briefs regarding newly instituted claims 8, 11, 13, and
`21–23. Id. We explained that Petitioner may submit a declaration to present
`“rebuttal evidence” to the findings and determinations we made in the
`Institution Decision regarding claims 8, 11, 13, and 21–23. Id. at 2–3. We
`further explained that in view of the Trial Practice Guide Update, “Petitioner
`may not submit new evidence, issues, or argument that it could have
`presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Id.
`at 3. And we explained:
`[I]t would not be appropriate for Petitioner to fill in the gaps of
`the Petition by showing, for the very first time, how the prior
`art of record describes a claim element that was not accounted
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`
`for previously. Rather, Petitioner’s supplemental brief is
`limited to identifying matters that Petitioner believes we
`misapprehended or overlooked in the Petition, or how we
`otherwise erred in the Institution Decision for claims 8, 11, 13,
`and 21–23.
`
`
`
`Id.
`
`In response to our Order, Petitioner filed a supplemental brief and
`supplemental declaration from Dr. Beaman addressing newly instituted
`claims 8, 11, 13, and 21–23. Paper 48 (Pet. Supp. Br.); Ex. 1038. Patent
`Owner filed a response to Petitioner’s supplemental brief. Paper 52.
`Petitioner filed a reply to Patent Owner’s responsive brief. Paper 53. An
`oral hearing was held regarding newly instituted claims 8, 11, 13, and 21–
`23. Paper 60 (“Tr. 2”).
`In lieu of reproducing our previous Final Written Decision here, we
`adopt and incorporate by reference, in its entirety, our previous Final Written
`Decision that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
`claims 1, 4–7, 9, 10, 14–20, and 25 of the ’901 patent are unpatentable.
`Final Written Decision. In this Decision, we augment our earlier decision to
`address a few points raised previously by Patent Owner before the Federal
`Circuit. In addition, we address newly instituted claims 8, 11, 13, and 21–
`23. For the reasons provided below, we reiterate that Petitioner has shown
`by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 4–7, 9, 10, 14–20, and 25
`are unpatentable. The Petitioner, however, has not shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 8, 11, 13, and 21–23 are
`unpatentable.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Obviousness of Claim 1 over Raith and EVH, Raith and Yu, and Raith
`and MacGregor
`As explained above, we adopt and incorporate by reference, in its
`entirety, our previous Final Written Decision that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 4–7, 9, 10, 14–20, and 25 of the
`’901 patent are unpatentable. Final Written Decision. We augment that
`decision to address a few points raised previously by Patent Owner before
`the Federal Circuit with respect to claim 1.
`On page 22 of the Final Written Decision, we addressed Patent
`Owner’s argument that, in essence, Dr. Beaman’s original declaration
`(Ex. 1018 ¶ 95) should be given little to no weight (e.g., no substantial
`weight), because during cross-examination he expressed doubt that he would
`import EVH’s horizontal distance channels into Raith. Final Written
`Decision 22. We explained that Dr. Beaman’s testimony, however, was
`taken out of context by Patent Owner because the testimony was based on
`ways to bodily incorporate parts of EVH into Raith. Id.
`For example, when asked if “[y]ou would want to take this horizontal
`and put it right into the vertical frames of Raith,” Dr. Beaman testified that
`“I’m not sure I’d take that particular element and stick it right into Raith.”
`Ex. 2003, 106. We did not give this testimony much weight because the line
`of questioning was with respect to sticking the horizontal stringer right into
`Raith. In other words, the line of questing was, to us, with respect to bodily
`incorporating elements from EVH into Raith. In any event, Dr. Beaman also
`testified, “you could take this structure [bottom distance channel 11 in EVH]
`and use it directly into Raith.” Ex. 2003, 105:14–23. At another point, he
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`similarly testified. Id. at 116:17–24 (“Q: But you do opine that a person of
`skill would have found it feasible and desirable to use the distance channel
`of EVH with the Raith system as a manner of affixing and supporting the
`glass panels of Raith, correct? A. I think you could or you could just take
`the entire glass panel of EVH and have the connection method of Raith.”);
`see also id. at 118–119.
`Dr. Beaman’s cross-examination testimony is consistent with, and
`confirms, his original testimony that (1) Raith does not show details of a
`horizontal stringer for retaining glass panels (compare Ex. 1018 ¶ 95 with
`Ex. 2003, 122:9–19); (2) EVH does show details of horizontal stringers for
`retaining glass panels (compare Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 77, 78, 95 with Ex. 2003,
`104:10–105:23); and (3) a person having ordinary skill in the art would have
`recognized that securing glass panels both vertically and horizontally, e.g.,
`on all four sides as opposed to just vertically, would have been desirable
`(compare Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 78, 90, 95 with Ex. 2003, 124:3–17). When viewing
`his testimony as a whole, we find, as we did before, Dr. Beaman to be a
`credible witness. We further determine that his cross-examination testimony
`does not undermine his original declaration such that we should give no
`weight to his original testimony (e.g., Ex. 1018) as Patent Owner urges us to
`do.
`
`Additionally, independent record evidence supports Petitioner’s
`showing why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined
`Raith with EVH. Raith itself describes “modular structural components
`[that] may be easily assembled and disassembled with various head and
`base assemblies to create a variety of different screen or partition systems.”
`Ex. 1003, 1:12–15. EVH describes such head and base assemblies.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`Ex. 1004, Fig. 2, elements 9, 11 (e.g., “horizontal stringers”).1 Such
`descriptions support, and are consistent with, Petitioner’s showing that a
`person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use
`EVH’s horizontal distance channels as an obvious selection for the “head
`and base assemblies” of Raith for securing glass panels horizontally (as
`taught by EVH, but not clearly taught by Raith). Pet. 24–25; Final Written
`Decision 16–17; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 77, 78, 95.
`For similar reasons provided above, we also do not find that Dr.
`Beaman’s cross-examination testimony undermines his original declaration
`with respect to the combinations of Raith and Yu and Raith and MacGregor.
`See, e.g., Final Written Decision at 28–29, 34. Again, we explained that Dr.
`Beaman’s testimony was taken out of context by Patent Owner because the
`testimony was based on ways to bodily incorporate parts of Yu or
`MacGregor into Raith. Id. In other words, the line of questing was, to us,
`with respect to bodily incorporating elements from Yu or MacGregor into
`Raith.
`For example, when asked whether a horizontal stringer of Yu “could
`be used to replace a part in a glass panel of Raith,” Dr. Beaman testified that
`“top and bottom would be the place to do it, and I’m not sure you could do it
`there. These are really for affixing, tapping in tiles that you could change
`
`
`1 As we stated in our Final Written Decision, contrary to Patent Owner’s
`arguments, Raith does not describe head and base assemblies in the context
`of any of the other described “assemblies” of the invention. Final Written
`Decision 18–19. In addition, Raith itself further supports the combination of
`“other head and base assemblies” from other existing partition systems, like
`EVH’s distance channels with the modular components of Raith as asserted
`by Petitioner. Id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003, 16:38–44).
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`out.” Ex. 2003, 139:13–16. The line of questioning was with respect to
`combining Yu’s horizontal structure with Raith’s glass panel, a combination
`neither Petitioner nor Dr. Beaman proposed to make. Rather, the proposed
`combination involves removable panel tiles, not glass panels. See, e.g.,
`Pet. 37; Ex. 1018 ¶ 148. Accordingly, Dr. Beaman’s testimony regarding
`glass panels with the Yu horizontal stringers was weighted appropriately,
`e.g., given little weight, because that line of questioning was not particularly
`relevant to Petitioner’s position with respect to combining Raith and Yu. In
`any event, Dr. Beaman testified that “[y]ou could affix glass panels . . . to
`the Yu Structure.” Ex. 2003, 139:18–19. Dr. Beaman also testified that he
`would not “put the Yu in the solid panels” too, but again the questions were
`with respect to “solid panels” not “removable panel tiles.” PO Resp. 43
`(citing Ex. 2003, 138:18–139:7). Accordingly, we gave such testimony the
`weight it was entitled.
`In addition, independent record evidence supports Petitioner’s
`showing why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined
`Raith with Yu. Yu describes cross rails that have channels for receiving
`hook-like projections of connector brackets that support various wall
`accessories in the form of furniture components, such as a storage cabinet.
`Ex. 1005, 13:65–14:3, 14:51–66, 24:51–60, 25:24–40. Yu’s horizontal
`members also include connectors for connection to T-shaped beads secured
`to cover pads or tiles. Id. at 24:3–29, 25:24–40. Such descriptions support,
`and are consistent with, Petitioner’s showing that a person having ordinary
`skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Yu with Raith because
`doing so would provide the ability to easily attach discrete tiles and for
`hanging furniture components from the panel system of Raith. Pet. 37. As
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`explained in the Final Written Description, Raith itself explains that its
`modular components may be combined with existing partition systems, like
`Yu. Final Written Decision 28 (citing Ex. 1003, 16:38–44).
`Similarly, with respect to the combination of Raith and MacGregor,
`Dr. Beaman’s testimony was taken out of context by Patent Owner because
`the testimony was based on ways to bodily incorporate parts of MacGregor
`into Raith. Final Written Decision 34. For example, when asked whether a
`horizontal stringer of MacGregor could be imported into Raith, Dr. Beaman
`testified that “I don’t think we could directly import them in,” but he later
`clarified that you could if you make the panels “detachable and attachable.”
`Ex. 2003, 159:18–19, 160:19–22. His testimony is consistent with his
`original declaration, where he testified that it would have been obvious to
`modify Raith to use MacGregor’s stringers and aesthetic surfaces (cover
`tiles) (e.g., attachable and detachable) to affix to the horizontal stringers.
`Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 179, 189. Once again, we find, as we did before, Dr. Beaman to
`be a credible witness. His cross-examination does not undermine his
`original testimony such that we should give no substantial weight to his
`original testimony (e.g., Ex. 1018) as Patent Owner urges us to do.
`For all of the reasons stated in the Final Written Decision, along with
`the additional reasons provided here, Petitioner has proven, by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 6, 7, and 15–18 are
`unpatentable over the combination of Raith and EVH; claims 1, 4, 5, and 9
`are unpatentable over the combination of Raith and Yu; claims 1, 4, 10, 19,
`and 20 are unpatentable over the combination of Raith and MacGregor;
`claim 25 is unpatentable over the combination of Raith, MacGregor, and
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`Rozier, and claim 14 is unpatentable over the combination of Raith, EVH,
`and Dixon.
`B. Obviousness of Claims 11 and 13 over Raith and EVH
`Petitioner contends that claims 11 and 13 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Raith and EVH. Pet. 21–22, 27–28, 32.2
`To support its contentions, Petitioner provides explanations as to how the
`prior art meets each claim limitation. Id. Petitioner also relies upon a
`Declaration of Joseph J. Beaman, Jr. (“Dr. Beaman”). Ex. 1018.
`Claim 11 depends directly from claim 1 and includes “a levelling
`system having: a universal foot; a leveller capable of engaging said universal
`foot; and a structural extrusion to engage surface of said at least one
`module, said structural extrusion connecting to said leveller, wherein said
`leveller provides the sole connection between said universal foot and said
`module.” Ex. 1001, 10:66–11:4. Claim 13 depends directly from claim 11
`and recites “a base trim, said base trim attaching to said universal foot.” Id.
`at 11:13–15.
`In the Petition, Petitioner relies on EVH’s description of glide
`assemblies 25 mounted to vertical posts 13 of a support frame 23 of a wall
`panel system to meet the claim 11 limitations. Pet. 21, 27–28, 32. In
`particular, Petitioner contends that floor channel 19 and glide assembly
`55 shown in Figures 10–12 of EVH respectively meet the “universal foot”
`and “leveller” limitations. Id. Petitioner provides the following annotated
`EVH Figures 10 and 12, along with a colored bullet-point list, to illustrate
`how EVH meets the elements of claims 11 and 13. Id. at 22; see also Ex.
`
`
`2 We address the newly instituted claims in the order presented in the
`Petition.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`1018 ¶ 98.
`
`
`
`
`
`trim")
`
`Grooves (“channei for
`
`receiving [g‘ass]
`
`divider”)
`
`Base cover (”base
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`Petitioner annotated EVH Figures 10 and 12 and colored bullet-point
`
`list, to illustrate a glide assembly.
`
`Petitioner’s annotated figures and colored bullet-point list show that
`the green shaded item is what Petitioner relies on to meet the claim 11
`“universal foot,” the blue shaded item is what Petitioner relies on to meet the
`claim 11 “leveller,” and the red shaded item is what Petitioner relies on to
`meet the claim 13 “base trim.” Notably missing from the above illustration
`is any shading or identification of the claim 11 “structural extrusion,” even
`though vertical posts 13 are in the above illustration.
`In our Decision on Institution, we determined that Petitioner had not
`accounted for the claimed “structural extrusion” limitation of claim 11,
`because “[t]here is no mention in either the Petition or the Beaman
`Declaration of what element in EVH meets the ‘structural extrusion’
`limitation.” Dec. 12. We further explained that Petitioner had failed to
`comply with the requirement that its petition specify where each element of
`the claim is found in the prior art relied upon, citing 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(4). Id. Lastly, we determined that because claim 13 depends
`from claim 11 and includes all of the limitations of claim 11, Petitioner also
`failed to establish that claim 13 would have been obvious over Raith and
`EVH. Id. Petitioner did not seek rehearing of our determination with
`respect to claims 11 and 13. Req. Reh’g; Decision Req. Reh’g.
`In its Supplemental Brief, Petitioner argues that we misapprehended
`and overlooked the Petition and Dr. Beaman’s original declaration that
`EVH’s vertical posts 13 meet the “structural extrusion” limitation. Pet.
`Supp. Br. 5–6. We disagree. We could not have overlooked something that
`is not in either the Petition or Dr. Beaman’s original declaration. On page 5
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`
`of its Supplemental Brief, Petitioner argues that the Petition and Dr. Beaman
`equated EVH’s “vertical posts of a support frame” with the structural
`extrusion limitation. Id. at 5. Nowhere in the Petition or paragraph 98 of
`Dr. Beaman’s original declaration is there an explanation that EVH’s
`vertical posts of a support frame meet, or equate to, the structural extrusion
`limitation. In fact, the Petition explains that a person having ordinary skill in
`the art at the time of the invention would have understood EVH’s “vertical
`posts [13] to be ‘vertical end frames’ according to claim 1.” Pet. 20.
`Moreover, as explained above, vertical posts 13 are seen in the
`annotated figures presented in both the Petition and Dr. Beaman’s
`declaration, but are not annotated or color-coded like all other items.
`Accordingly, the Petition only makes clear that the vertical posts are the
`claimed vertical end frames of claim 1. Id. The Petition never explains or
`indicates in any way that the same item (EVH’s vertical posts 13) also meets
`the claim 11’s “structural extrusion” element and all that it entails, e.g., an
`explanation of how the supposed “structural extrusion” (vertical post)
`engages the surface of at least one module. To the extent that Petitioner
`argues that we should have independently determined that EVH’s vertical
`posts 13 also meet the “structural extrusion” limitation of claim 8, we
`disagree. It is not our role to speculate as to what a petition may mean or to
`make out a petitioner’s case to the detriment of a patent owner. Petitioner
`bears the burden of demonstrating that a particular feature is met by the prior
`art, not the Board. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Petitioner must make its case in
`the first instance by explaining in the petition where each element of the
`claim is found in the prior art relied upon. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).
`Petitioner has failed to meet these requirements. For all of the above
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`
`reasons, Petitioner has failed to show we misapprehended or overlooked any
`matters with respect to claim 11.
`In its supplemental brief, Petitioner argues for the first time that
`(1) EVH’s vertical posts are “structural extrusions”; (2) it would have been
`obvious to modify Raith’s vertical frame members using extrusion, as
`opposed to roll-forming, techniques; and (3) a person of skill in the art
`would have found it obvious to attach EVH’s leveller to Raith’s modified
`vertical frame member. Pet. Supp. Br. 6–9 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:6–12;
`Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 98–99, 109; Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 9–15). Petitioner’s new theory is best
`summed up as follows in Dr. Beaman’s new declaration:
`Claim 11 would have been obvious to a person of skill as of the
`priority date of the ’901 patent for the reasons given in my
`initial declaration, including that EVH discloses “a structural
`extrusion connecting to said leveller,” which, in the case of
`EVH, is simply the vertical posts of the support frame of EVH.3
`Similarly, when combined with Raith, a person of skill would
`have found it obvious to attach the EVH leveller (i.e., glide
`assemblies) to the vertical end frames of Raith, which a person
`of skill would have known could interchangeably be roll-
`formed or extruded depending on the particular manufacturing
`needs.
`Ex. 1038 ¶15.
`Petitioner’s explanation in its supplemental brief, along with new
`evidence in support of the argument, disregards our order that “Petitioner
`may not submit new evidence, issues, or argument that it could have
`presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”
`Order 3. Accordingly, we need not and do not consider the new evidence
`
`
`3 As explained above, Dr. Beaman did not make any such explanation in his
`original declaration.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`and new arguments made in the Supplemental Brief that Petitioner could
`have presented as part of the Petition. Cf. Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v.
`Illumina Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Once the Board
`identifies new issues presented for the first time in reply, neither this court
`nor the Board must parse the reply brief to determine which, if any, parts of
`that brief are responsive and which are improper.”).
`For all of the above reasons, we determine that Petitioner has failed to
`show that claims 11 and 13 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`obvious over Raith and EVH.
`C. Obviousness of Claim 8 over Raith and Yu
`Petitioner contends that claim 8 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Raith and Yu. Pet. 33–36, 39, 43. To support its
`contentions, Petitioner provides explanations as to how the prior art meets
`each claim limitation. Id. Petitioner also relies upon a Declaration of
`Dr. Beaman. Ex. 1018. Claim 8 is reproduced below with emphasis added.
`8. The movable reconfigurable wall system of claim 1,
`wherein said stringers include a cantilever channel stringer, said
`cantilever channel stringer having: a central horizontally
`extending channel portion with a generally L-shaped slot, said
`L-shaped slot adapted to receive and engage a substantially L-
`shaped hook formed on a wall accessory; and upper portion
`having a tile support; a lower portion having a tile support; and
`a pair of extending webs connecting said channel portion to
`said upper and a lower portion.
`
`For purposes of this decision, we focus on the italicized language
`above (the disputed claim language). In the Petition claim chart for claim 8,
`Petitioner asserts that Yu “discloses cross rails that include channels that
`receive hook-like ends of connector brackets. Cross rails and associated
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`mounting brackets include connectors for connection to the T-shaped beads
`of cover pads, or tiles.” Pet. 43. With respect to the Petition’s description of
`Yu, Petitioner argues that Yu’s cross rails 200 and mounting brackets 189-5
`mounted to cross rails 200 combine to define the “channel stringers” of
`claim 8 and that Yu’s cross rails 200 are “L-shaped” and that Yu’s L-shaped
`hooks are received in channels 51-5. Id. at 35.
`Petitioner provides the following two annotated and modified versions
`of Yu Figure 30 to illustrate how Yu meets the “generally L-shaped slot . . .
`adapted to receive and engage a substantially L-shaped hook” limitation of
`claim 8. Pet. 36; see also Ex. 1018 ¶ 155.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends that the “modified annotated version of Fig. 30
`shows how the profiles of the cross rail 200 and mounting bracket 189-5 are
`juxtaposed, and as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Pet.
`35–36 (citing Ex. 1018 ¶ 155). Petitioner further contends that the green
`markings in the modified annotated version of Yu’s Figure 30 shown above
`demonstrates an L-shaped slot. Id. In our Decision on Institution, we stated
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`that “Petitioner has not explained sufficiently how the modified Yu Figure
`30 meets the [L-shaped slot] limitation.” Institution Decision 18. As we
`stated in our Decision, if Petitioner relies only on 51-5 as the L-shaped slot,
`Petitioner has not demonstrated how 51-5 or the green L floating above 51-5
`illustrates an L-shaped slot. Id. We also explained that if Petitioner is
`relying on bracket 189-5 mounted on cross rail 200, along with 51-5, where
`189-5 represents the boundary of the long part of the green L from above,
`Petitioner has not explained sufficiently how Yu’s bracket 189-5 (which is
`needed to form the L-shaped slot) engages connector bracket 26. Id.
`Petitioner requested rehearing of our decision, disagreeing with our
`assessment of what Petitioner meant with its annotated and modified Yu
`Figure 30. Req. Reh’g. In our decision, we explained that Petitioner, not the
`Board, bears the burden of demonstrating that a particular feature is met by
`the prior art, citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Decision Req. Reh’g 3. We
`further reiterated that the Petition is unclear on Petitioner’s position with
`respect to what element(s) and how such element(s) meets the disputed
`claim langauge. Id. In its rehearing request, Petitioner explained, that it is
`bracket 189-5 that “defines the longer top portion of the L-shaped slot.”
`Req. Reh’g 13. Petitioner further argued that it need not demonstrate that
`bracket 189-5 engages connector bracket 26 because nothing in claim 8
`requires all surfaces or portions of the L-shaped slot to directly engage all
`surfaces or portions of a substantially L-shaped hook. Id. As we pointed
`out, however, the Petition does not explain how Yu describes or shows an L-
`shaped slot adapted to receive and engage a substantially L-shaped hook.
`Decision Req. Reh’g 4. As we stated therein, the Petition simply is unclear.
`In its supplemental brief, Petitioner argues that it made clear that Yu’s
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`connector brackets are received in channels 51-5. Pet. Supp. Br. 2–3.
`Petitioner, however, does not apparently rely on channels 51-5, alone, to
`meet the L-shaped slot. Rather, in its rehearing request, Petitioner makes
`clear for the first time that it is bracket 189-5 that “defines the longer top
`portion of the L-shaped slot.” Req. Reh’g 13. Thus, it is channel 51-5,
`along with bracket 189-5 that Petitioner now somehow contends meets the
`L-shaped slot. Pet. 35–36 (citing Ex. 1018 ¶ 155 and showing modified Yu
`Figure 30). This was confirmed both in Petitioner’s rehearing request and
`during oral argument. Req. Reh’g 13; Tr. 2, 7–8. The Petition does state
`that “[t]he cross rails 200 and the mounting brackets 189-5 mounted to the
`crossrails 200, combine to define ‘channel stringers’ according to claim 8.”
`Pet. 35. The Petition further explains, for example, that the mounting
`brackets and cross rails together define “Y-shaped resilient connectors 190-
`5, 190-5’ for connection to T-shaped beads that are secured to cover pads, or
`tiles.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 24:3–29, 25:24–40, Figs. 2, 26–30). The
`Petition does not explain, however, with the particularity necessary to
`apprise us of sufficiently clear structural and mechanical details, how the
`combination of mounting brackets 189-5 and cross rails 200, or more
`importantly mounting brackets 189-5 and channels 51-5, defines an “L-
`shaped slot” as claimed. Indeed, the claim chart at page 43 of the Petition is
`even less clear, and states for claim 8 that it is simply Yu’s “cross rails that
`include channels that receive hook-like ends of connector brackets.” Id. at
`43. The additional articulation for “a tile support,” in the claim chart for
`claim 8, addresses the combination of “cross rails and associated mounting
`brackets,” for the Y-shaped “connectors for connection to the T-shaped
`beads of cover pads, or tiles,” but not for the “L-shaped slot.” Id.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`Accordingly, the Petition does not explain how the combination of cross
`rails and mounting brackets produces the confines of what it argues is the L-
`shaped slot adapted to receive and engage a substantially L-shaped hook.
`Again, the Petition does not explain how the combination of channel 51-5
`(or cross rails 200) and bracket 189-5 meets the limitation. Moreover, the
`Petition does not explain sufficiently how 51-5 alone meets the disputed L-
`shaped limitation; a position Petitioner acknowledges it never asserted in the
`first place. Tr. 2, 7:10–8:12. For all of these reasons, we determine that the
`Petition fails to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 8 would
`have been obvious over Raith and Yu.
`D. Obviousness of Claims 21–23 over Raith and MacGregor
`Petitioner contends that claims 21–23 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Raith and MacGregor. Pet. 44–48,
`51–52. To support its contentions, Petitioner provides explanations as to
`how the prior art meets each claim limitation. Id. Petitioner also relies upon
`a Declaration of Dr. Beaman. Ex. 1018.
`Claim 21 recites “[t]he movable reconfigurable wall unit of claim 1,
`wherein said vertical end frame depth is extended to provide a deeper wall.”
`Claim 22 depends from claim 21 and recites “wherein said deeper wall is
`adapted to accommodate a rear-projection video system.” Claim 23 depends
`from claim 21 and recites “wherein said deeper wall is adapted to
`accommodate an integrated storage system.”
`In the Petition claim chart for claim 21, Petitioner asserts that
`MacGregor “discloses the partition panels receive one or more modular
`accessory units.” Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 45, 48, 52, 59, Figs. 1UT, 1T,
`9, 12; Ex. 1018 ¶ 198). The Petition further asserts that MacGregor
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01691
`Patent 8,024,901 B2
`
`
`describes partition panels including horizontal cross members, intermediate
`beam
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
