UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GM Global Technology Operations LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`U.S. Design Patent No. D813,120
`
`Filed: September 19, 2016
`
`Issued: March 20, 2018
`
`Title: Hood Panel of Car
`
`__________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. DESIGN PATENT NO. D813,120
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 5
`
`III.
`
`FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................................. 7
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................ 7
`
`A. Grounds for Standing – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ..................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Identification of Challenged Claim for Which Inter Partes Review is
`Requested and Specific Statutory Grounds on which the Challenge is
`Based – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ......... 8
`
`Overview of the ’120 Patent and Claim Construction Thereof –
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ....................................................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The ’120 Patent ........................................................................... 8
`
`Claim Construction of the ’120 Patent .....................................13
`
`D. How the Challenged Claim is Unpatentable – 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(4) ......................................................................................22
`
`E.
`
`Evidence Relied Upon to Support the Challenge and the Relevance of
`the Evidence to the Challenge Raised – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) .....22
`
`V. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................ 24
`
`A. Anticipation Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ...................................................24
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Designs Found Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ...........................28
`
`Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................31
`
`D. Designs Found Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................34
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Designer of Ordinary Skill ..................................................................40
`
`Ordinary Observer ...............................................................................41
`
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY .................................................................................. 42
`
`A. Ground 1: The ’120 Patent is Anticipated by the Patent Owner’s
`Undisclosed Prior Art the 2014 and 2015 Chevrolet Traverse. ..........42
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: In the Alternative, the ’120 Patent is Unpatentable as
`Obvious Over the Prior Art Traverse in View of the Prior Art Sonic.
` .............................................................................................................54
`
`i
`
`

`

`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 64
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 64
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`A&H Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Contempo Card Co.,
`576 F. Supp. 894 (D.R.I. 1983) ............................................................................27
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
` 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...........................................................................32
`
`Application of Cornwall,
`230 F.2d 457 (C.C.P.A. 1956) ..............................................................................26
`
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
` 815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...........................................................................25
`
`C & D Zodiac, Inc. v. b/e Aerospace, Inc.,
` PGR2017-00019, Paper No. 37, 2018 WL 5298631 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2018) ..40
`
`Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc.,
` IPR2017-00096, Paper No. 28, 2018 WL 1582298 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018) . 33,
`37, 38, 39
`
`Contessa Food Prods., Inc. v. Conagra, Inc.,
` 282 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...........................................................................14
`
`Dobson v. Dornan,
` 118 U.S. 10 (1886) ...............................................................................................15
`
`Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co.,
` 101 F.3d 100 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ...................................................................... 32, 55
`
`Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.,
` 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................ 14, 15, 25
`
`Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc.,
` 796 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 15, 25, 26
`
`Gorham Co. v. White,
` 81 U.S. 511 (1871) ............................................................................ 25, 26, 28, 29
`
`iii
`
`

`

`High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.,
` 730 F.3d 1301 (Fed.Cir.2013) .............................................................................15
`
`In re Borden,
` 90 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................ 31, 33, 57
`
`In re Carter,
` 673 F.2d 1378 (C.C.P.A. 1982) ...........................................................................32
`
`In re Chung,
` No. 00–1148, 2000 WL 1476861 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 4, 2000) .................................32
`
`In re Gleave,
` 560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...........................................................................25
`
`In re Lamb,
` 286 F.2d 610 (C.C.P.A. 1961) ...................................................................... 31, 55
`
`In re Nalbandian,
` 661 F.2d 1214 (C.C.P.A. 1981) .................................................................... 32, 34
`
`In re Rosen,
` 673 F.2d 388 (C.C.P.A. 1982) ...................................................................... 32, 55
`
`In re Stevens,
`173 F.2d 1015 (C.C.P.A. 1949) ............................................................................27
`
`In re Webb,
`916 F.2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ..................................................................... 27, 28
`
`Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp.,
` 589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................ 25, 26, 33, 44
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex,
` 550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................................33
`
`MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP,
` 747 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................... passim
`
`Peters v. Active Mfg. Co.,
` 129 U.S. 530 (1889) .............................................................................................25
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
` 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...........................................................................14
`
`Schwinn Bicycle Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Co.,
`444 F.2d 295 (9th Cir. 1970) ................................................................................34
`
`Sensio, Inc. v. Select Brands, Inc.,
` No. IPR2013-00500, Paper No. 8, 2014 WL 2507791 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2014)
` .................................................................................................................. 26, 29, 30
`
`Sofpool LLC v. Kmart Corp.,
` No. S-10-3333 (LKK), 2013 WL 2384331 (E.D. Cal. May 30, 2013), aff’d, 550
`Fed. Appx. 896 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...........................................................................33
`
`Sport Dimension, Inc. v. Coleman Co., Inc.,
` 820 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 15, 26
`
`Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc.,
` 566 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...........................................................................34
`
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Sols., Inc.,
` 698 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...........................................................................43
`
`Xactware Sols., Inc. v. Pictometry Int’l, Corp.,
` IPR2016-00593, Paper No. 13, 2016 WL 5224310 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016) ..44
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 (2018) ........................................................................................8, 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (2018) ...................................................................... 43, 44, 59
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 (2018) ........................................................................................8, 31
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(a) ....................................................................................................24
`
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
` Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) .................................................................... 1
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 807 .....................................................................................................43
`
`v
`
`

`

`Regulations
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.152
`37 C.F.R. § 1.152
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`37 CPR. § 42.100(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`14
`
`14
`14
`
`vi
`Vi
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. D813,120 (“the ’120 Patent”)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. D813,120
`
`Declaration of Jim Gandy, dated October 10, 2019
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill, Dated October 10, 2019
`
`Sonic 2017, General Motors, July 2016 (“Sonic 2017”)
`
`Traverse 2015, General Motors, July 2014, archived on December
`12, 2014, by the Internet Archive organization’s “Wayback
`Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20141212044203/http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Chevrolet/Traverse/Chevrolet_US%20Travers
`e_2015.pdf. (“Traverse 2015”)
`
`Traverse/14, General Motors, July 2013, archived on April 3, 2014,
`by the Internet Archive organization’s “Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140403110028/http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Chevrolet/Traverse/Chevrolet_US%20Travers
`e_2014.pdf_2014.pdf (“Traverse/14”)
`
`Screenshot of 2014 Chevrolet Traverse LS, extracted from “2014
`Chevy Traverse LS Review Walkaround – Used Cars for Sale in
`Columbus Ohio” (timestamp: 4m34s), published on YouTube on
`March 24, 2014 by Chesrown Autos, accessible at
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jZ_LYGZJnU
`
`Screenshot of 2014 Chevrolet Traverse LS, extracted from “New
`2014 Chevrolet Traverse LS Review | 140377” (timestamp 0:06),
`published on YouTube on April 25, 2014, by Michael Boyer
`Chevrolet Cadillac Buick GMC Ltd., accessible at
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCF77dLIbJ4
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`Description
`
`Screenshot of 2017 Chevrolet Sonic LS Sedan, extracted from “2017
`Chevy Sonic LS Sedan: First Person In Depth Look” (timestamp
`03:33), published on YouTube on January 21, 2017, by N&T Auto
`Reviews, accessible at
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNdO0zmU5Qc
`
`Screenshot of 2012 Chevrolet Sonic LTZ, extracted from “Chevrolet
`Sonic LTZ 2012 Test Drive & Car Review with Ross Rapoport by
`RoadflyTV” (timestamp 00:58), published on May 8, 2012, by
`RoadflyTV, accessible at
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0tk7sJSD6Q
`
`Photograph of 2015 Chevrolet Traverse, www.chevrolet.com,
`archived on June 9, 2014, by the Internet Archive organization’s
`“Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140609161008/http://www.chevrolet.
`com/content/dam/Chevrolet/northamerica/usa/nscwebsite/en/Home/
`Vehicles/SUVs%20and%20Crossovers/2015_Traverse/Model_Over
`view/01_images/2015-chevrolet-traverse-crossover-suv-mo-exterior-
`1480x551-04.jpg
`
`2013 Sonic, General Motors, August 2012, archived on April 3,
`2014, by the Internet Archive organization’s “Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140403104909/http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Chevrolet/Sonic/Chevrolet_US%20Sonic_201
`3.pdf
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Jim Gandy
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Jason C. Hill
`
`Declaration of Margaret Herrmann, dated October 2, 2019.
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. (together “LKQ”
`
`or “Petitioner”) respectfully request inter partes review of the claim of U.S. Patent
`
`No. D813,120 (“the ’120 Patent”) assigned to and owned by GM Global Technology
`
`Operations LLC (“GM”). The ’120 Patent, attached hereto as Exhibit 1001, was
`
`filed on September 19, 2016, and issued on March 6, 2018. The ’120 Patent further
`
`claims priority to a Korean patent application filed on September 19, 2016. Because
`
`the filing date of the ’120 Patent is after March 16, 2013, the “first inventor to file”
`
`rules govern this proceeding and conditions for patentability. See Leahy-Smith
`
`America Invents Act, Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). This Petition shows by
`
`a preponderance of the evidence that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`will prevail on invalidating the ’120 Patent based on prior art that renders anticipated
`
`or obvious the single claim of the ’120 Patent.
`
`The ’120 Patent claims “[t]he ornamental design for a hood panel of a car, as
`
`shown and described.” Ex. 1001, at 1. The ’120 Patent covers a single claim and
`
`seven figures. Figure 1 of the ’120 Patent is representative of the design:
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Id., FIG. 1.
`
`The ’120 Patent depicts and claims a hood panel comprising a center bevel, a
`
`sloped U-shaped band, a pair of triangular flanges, a raised middle portion, a pair of
`
`sloping planes, a pair of accent bevels, and an underside and structural plate of a
`
`hood panel. Ex. 1003, Declaration of James Gandy (“Gandy Dec.”), ¶ 41; Ex. 1004,
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill (“Hill Dec.”), ¶ 44. These features are identified in the
`
`below annotated version of Figure 1:
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec. ¶ 41; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec. ¶ 44.
`
`However, these design elements are disclosed by prior art or are de minimis
`
`differences routine to a designer of ordinary skill in the art, as shown below. In
`
`particular, copies of the Model years 2013–2015 Chevrolet Traverse sold and
`
`depictions thereof in publications prior to March 18, 2015, i.e., one year before the
`
`’120 Patent’s claimed foreign priority date, all constitute prior art to the ’120 Patent.
`
`Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec., ¶¶ 60–66; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec., ¶¶ 63–67. Images of the
`
`model years 2014 and 2015 Chevrolet Traverse are set forth below:
`
`3
`
`

`

`2014–2015 Chevrolet Traverse
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1006, at 5 (cropped and rotated); Ex. 1007, at 4 (cropped); Ex. 1003, Gandy
`
`
`
`Dec., ¶ 64; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec., ¶ 66.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Copies of the Model years 2013–2015 Chevrolet Sonic automobiles sold and
`
`depictions thereof in publications prior to March 18, 2015 (the “Prior Art Sonic”)
`
`also constitute prior art to the ’120 Patent. Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec., ¶ 67; Ex. 1004,
`
`Hill Dec., ¶ 68.
`
`For the reasons set forth, and as shown by a simple comparison of the ’120
`
`Patent and pertinent prior art addressed more fully herein, the ’120 Patent is
`
`unpatentable as anticipated in view of the Prior Art Traverse or obvious in view of
`
`the Prior Art Traverse in further view of the Prior Art Sonic.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`In accordance with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, LKQ states as
`
`follows:
`
`Real Parties-In-Interest. LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive
`
`Industries, Inc., are real parties-in-interest. LKQ Corporation is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its corporate
`
`office located at 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois 60661.
`
`Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under
`
`the laws of the State of California with its corporate office located at 500 W.
`
`Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois 60661. Keystone Automotive
`
`Industries, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of LKQ Corporation.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Related Proceedings. In addition to this Petition, LKQ is filing petitions for
`
`Inter Partes Review or Post Grant Review for the following United States Design
`
`Patents also assigned to and owned by GM:
`
` U.S. Design Patent No. D828,255;
`
` U.S. Design Patent No. D841,532;
`
` U.S. Design Patent No. D823,741;
`
` U.S. Design Patent No. D811,964;
`
` U.S. Design Patent No. D840,306;
`
` U.S. Design Patent No. D847,703; and
`
` U.S. Design Patent No. D847,043.
`
`Designation of Petitioner’s Counsel. Petitioner submits a Power of Attorney
`
`with this Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b). Petitioner identifies the following lead and
`
`backup counsel to represent it in this matter:
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`Barry F. Irwin, P.C.
`
`Reid Huefner
`
`Irwin IP LLC
`
`Irwin IP LLC
`
`222 S. Riverside Plaza
`
`222 S. Riverside Plaza
`
`Suite 2350
`
`Suite 2350
`
`6
`
`

`

`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`Phone: 312.667.6081
`
`Phone: 312.667.6083
`
`birwin@irwinip.com
`
`rhuefner@irwinip.com
`
`Reg. No. (Reg. No. 36,557)
`
`Reg. No. (Reg. No. 57,341)
`
`Service Information. Petitioner consents to electronic service in this
`
`proceeding via (1) filing documents in the Patent Review Processing System
`
`(“PRPS”) or (2) emailing the documents to the above-designated counsel (when not
`
`filed in PRPS).
`
`Proof of Service. Proof of service of this Petition on the patent owner at the
`
`correspondence address of record for the ’120 Patent is attached.
`
`III. FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`The fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15 is included with this Petition. The
`
`Director is authorized to charge any additional required fees to Deposit Account No.
`
`603199.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`A. Grounds for Standing – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’120 Patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claim on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`7
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Identification of Challenged Claim for Which Inter Partes Review
`is Requested and Specific Statutory Grounds on which the
`Challenge is Based – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(2)
`
`Petitioner requests that the single claim of the ’120 Patent be found
`
`unpatentable on the basis that its claim is anticipated or obvious in light of prior art.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 (2018) (“A person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . . (1) the
`
`claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use,
`
`on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the
`
`claimed invention; or (2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued
`
`under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published
`
`under section 122(b).”); 35 U.S.C. § 103 (2018) (“A patent for a claimed invention
`
`may not be obtained . . . if the differences between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious
`
`before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.”).
`
`C. Overview of the ’120 Patent and Claim Construction Thereof –
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`
`1.
`
`The ’120 Patent
`
`What ultimately became the ’120 Patent, entitled “Hood Panel of Car,” was
`
`filed on September 19, 2016 and assigned Application No. 29/578,064 (“the ’064
`
`Application”). See Ex. 1002. The ’064 Application contained a single claim for
`
`8
`
`

`

`“the ornamental design for a hood panel of car [sic].” Id. The ’064 Application
`
`contained seven figures. See Ex. 1002, at 13–25. The ’064 claimed priority to
`
`Korean patent application no. 30-2016-0012824, which was filed on March 18,
`
`2016. See Ex. 1001 at 1. The ’120 Patent issued on March 20, 2018. Id.
`
`The seven figures and descriptions of the ’120 Patent are reproduced below:
`
`“FIG. 1 is a perspective view of new design [sic] for a hood panel of car [sic]
`
`as shown in the drawings[.]” Ex. 1001, at 1.
`
`Id. at FIG. 1.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`“FIG. 2 is a front elevation view thereof[.]” Id. at 1.
`
`Id. at FIG. 2.
`
`“FIG. 3 is a rear elevation view thereof[.]” Id. at 1.
`
`Id. at FIG. 3.
`
`“FIG. 4 is a left side elevation view thereof[.]” Id. at 1.
`
`Id. at FIG. 4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`“FIG. 5 is a right side elevation view thereof[.]” Id. at 1.
`
`Id. at FIG. 5.
`
`“FIG. 6 is a top plan view thereof[.]” Id. at 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at FIG. 6.
`
`11
`
`

`

`“FIG. 7 is a bottom plan view thereof.” Id. at 1.
`
`
`
`Id. at FIG. 7.
`
`The following photographs, sourced from a promotional brochure published
`
`by General Motors, shows the embodiment of the claimed design as it is used in
`
`commerce on the model years 2017-and-up Chevrolet Sonic automobile:
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1005, at 7, 9; Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec., ¶ 32; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec. ¶ 30.
`
`2.
`
`Claim Construction of the ’120 Patent
`
`
`
`In an inter partes review (“IPR”), “a claim of a patent . . . shall be construed
`
`using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim
`
`in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in
`
`13
`
`

`

`accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the
`
`patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).1 LKQ therefore employs that standard herein.
`
`The scope of a design patent is defined by the solid lines (not the broken or
`
`dashed lines) depicted in the claimed drawings in conjunction with their
`
`descriptions. See, e.g., Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 680
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 1.152); see also, Contessa Food
`
`Prods., Inc. v. Conagra, Inc., 282 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Although
`
`design patents protect ornamentation over function, “[i]f the overall appearance of a
`
`claimed design is not primarily functional, the design claim is not invalid, even if
`
`
`1 Effective November 13, 2018, the so-called broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`(“BRI”) standard is no longer appropriate. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents-
`
`application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/procedures/ptab-issues-claim-
`
`construction. Instead, all IPR proceedings must conduct their claim constructions
`
`using the Phillips standard put forth by the Federal Circuit in Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). That change was made to bring the PTAB
`
`in line with the federal courts and the International Trade Commission in
`
`examination
`
`standards.
`
`
`
`See
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-
`
`process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/procedures/ptab-issues-claim-construction.
`
`14
`
`

`

`certain elements have functional purposes.” Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien,
`
`Inc., 796 F.3d 1312, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[C]laim was limited to the ornamental
`
`aspects of these functional elements.”). LKQ notes that it is well-settled that a design
`
`is represented better by an illustration than a description. Egyptian Goddess, 543
`
`F.3d at 679 (citing Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10, 14 (1886)); see also, Sport
`
`Dimension, Inc. v. The Coleman Co., 820 F.3d 1316, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing
`
`cases). However, it may be “helpful to point out . . . various features of the claimed
`
`design as they relate to the . . . prior art,” and thus LKQ does so herein. Egyptian
`
`Goddess, 543 F.3d at 680. Cf. High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc., 730
`
`F.3d 1301, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (remanding to district court, in part, for a
`
`“verbal description of the claimed design to evoke a visual image consonant with
`
`that design”).
`
`The specification of the ’120 Patent claims “[t]he ornamental design for a
`
`hood panel of car [sic], as shown and described.” See Ex. 1001 at 1.
`
`As a result, the claimed design should be construed to be only the portions of
`
`the vehicle front bumper shown in solid lines and can be described as:
`
`15
`
`

`

`A vehicle front bumper comprising:
`
`a center peak;
`
`Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec., ¶ 42; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec., ¶ 45.
`
`
`a sloped U-shaped beveled edge;
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec., ¶ 43; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec., ¶ 46.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`a pair of substantially triangular flanges;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec., ¶ 44; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec., ¶ 47.
`
`
`a raised middle portion;
`
`Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec., ¶ 45; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec., ¶ 48.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`a pair of sloping planes;
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec., ¶ 46; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec., ¶ 49.
`
`
`a pair of accent beveled edges, each further comprising a bend; and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec., ¶ 47; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec., ¶ 50.
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`an underside and structural plate.
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec., ¶¶ 48–49; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec., ¶¶ 51–52.
`
`
`
`All of these elements are depicted and identified together in the below
`
`annotated diagram:
`
`Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec., ¶ 41; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec., ¶ 44.
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`The drawings of the ’120 Patent do not comprise any broken lines, and the
`
`specification comprises no indication that any portion of the drawings is excluded
`
`from the claimed design. Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec., ¶ 40; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec., ¶ 43.
`
`However, it is clear from the included drawings, which appear to be images of 3D
`
`models, that the drawings depict a number of elements that are functional or whose
`
`appearance would not be a matter of concern to purchasers. See Ex. 1003, Gandy
`
`Dec., ¶¶ 48–58; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec., at ¶¶ 51–61. Specifically, the ’120 Patent
`
`claims a structural plate along the underside of the hood comprising various sockets
`
`(presumably for receiving extrusions or vibration dampening mounts), various holes
`
`and openings for accommodating or mounting vehicle components, and a hood
`
`latching hook. Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec., ¶¶ 49–51; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec., ¶¶ 52–54.
`
`These holes, recesses, and extrusions serve purely functional purposes. Ex. 1003,
`
`Gandy Dec., ¶¶ 49–51; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec., ¶¶ 52–54. Those elements are not
`
`relevant to determinations of the novelty or obviousness of the claimed design. See
`
`§ V.A, infra.
`
`Likewise, the underside of the hood panel comprises a recessed central portion
`
`comprising a number of cutouts, where the remaining material has been formed into
`
`various kinds of mounting points and semi-tubular braces. Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec.,
`
`¶ 52; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec., ¶ 55. However, even if the appearance of any part of the
`
`underside of a vehicle hood panel could constitute a matter of concern to purchasers
`
`20
`
`

`

`(given that the hood will be closed for the vast majority of the vehicle’s life), Ex.
`
`1003, Gandy Dec., ¶ 53, Ex. 1004, Hill Dec., ¶ 56, the appearance of this central
`
`recessed portion of the ’120 Patent’s claimed design in particular is not a matter of
`
`concern to purchasers; it is designed to be concealed behind an opaque insulating
`
`pad that is affixed to the hood panel during normal use and operation. Ex. 1003,
`
`Gandy Dec., ¶¶ 54–55; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec., ¶¶ 57–58. Further, this insulating pad
`
`would already be in place before a new embodying vehicle was marketed, or would
`
`be installed before a customer receives delivery of a repaired vehicle (particularly
`
`given that such articles, that is, replacement automobile body parts, are typically
`
`purchased on behalf of vehicle owners by repair shops, and are ordered by part
`
`number or fitment rather than based upon visual appeal). Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec.,
`
`¶ 56; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec., ¶ 59. The features comprising the recessed central portion
`
`of the underside of the claimed hood panel of the ’120 Patent have no ornamental
`
`value whatsoever and, in fact, are hidden from purchasers via their concealment
`
`behind an insulating shroud in normal and ordinary use; their appearance would not
`
`be a matter of concern to purchasers. Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec., ¶¶ 57–58; Ex. 1004,
`
`Hill Dec., ¶¶ 60–61. Thus, the underside of the hood panel, its particular features,
`
`and especially its recessed central portion should be excluded from the scope of the
`
`claimed design of the ’120 Patent for purposes of determining whether that design
`
`is novel or non-obvious over the prior art. See §V.A, infra.
`
`21
`
`

`

`D. How the Challenged Claim is Unpatentable – 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(4)
`
`Specifically, and as will be addressed more fully herein, there are two
`
`alternative and non-redundant grounds for unpatentability of the ’120 Patent.
`
` First, the single claim of the ’120 Patent is unpatentable as anticipated
`
`by depictions of the Prior Art Traverse (Exs. 1006–1009, 1012); and
`
` Second, alternatively, the single claim of the ’120 Patent is
`
`unpatentable as obvious over depictions of the Prior Art Traverse (Exs.
`
`1006–1009, 1012) in further view of depictions of the Prior Art Sonic
`
`(Exs. 1011, 1013).
`
`E.
`
`Evidence Relied Upon to Support the Challenge and the
`Relevance of the Evidence to the Challenge Raised – 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(5)
`
`The following prior art references render the claim of the ’120 Patent
`
`anticipated under Ground 1, or, in the alternative, obvious under Ground 2:
`
`Exhibit
`1006
`
`Description
`Traverse 2015, General
`Motors
`
`Issue Date
`Copyrighted by General Motors as of
`July 2014; publication on auto-
`brochures.com archived via the Internet
`Archive organization’s Wayback
`Machine on Dec. 12, 2014 at
`https://web.archive.org/web/201412120
`44203/http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Chevrolet/Traver
`se/Chevrolet_US%20Traverse_2015.pd
`f
`
`22
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1011
`
`Screenshot of 2014
`Chevrolet Traverse LS,
`extracted from “2014
`Chevy Traverse LS Review
`Walkaround – Used Cars
`for Sale in Columbus Ohio”
`(timestamp: 4m34s),
`accessible at
`https://www.youtube.com/
`watch?v=5jZ_LYGZJnU
`Screenshot of 2014
`Chevrolet Traverse LS,
`extracted from “New 2014
`Chevrolet Traverse LS
`Review | 140377”
`(timestamp 0:06),
`accessible at
`https://www.youtube.com/
`watch?v=uCF77dLIbJ4
`Screenshot of 2012
`Chevrolet Sonic LTZ,
`extracted from “Chevrolet
`Sonic LTZ 2012 Test Drive
`& Car Review with Ross
`Rapoport by RoadflyTV”
`(timestamp 00:58),
`accessible at
`https://www.youtube.com/
`watch?v=W0tk7sJSD6Q
`
`Issue Date
`Description
`Traverse/14, General Motors Copyrighted by General Motors as of
`July 2013; publication on auto-
`brochures.com archived via the Internet
`Archive organization’s Wayback
`Machine on Apr. 3, 2014, at
`https://web.archive.org/web/201404031
`10028/http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Chevrolet/Traver
`se/Chevrolet_US%20Traverse_2014.pd
`f_2014.pdf
`Published on YouTube on March 24,
`2014 by Chesrown Autos
`
`Published on YouTube on April 25,
`2014, by Michael Boyer Chevrolet
`Cadillac Buick GMC Ltd.
`
`Published on YouTube on May 8, 2012,
`by RoadflyTV
`
`23
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`1012
`
`1013
`
`Description
`Photograph of 2015
`Chevrolet Traverse,
`www.chevrolet.com
`
`Issue Date
`Archived on June 9, 2014, by the
`Internet Archive organization’s
`“Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/201406091
`61008/http://www.chevrolet.com/conte
`nt/dam/Chevrolet/northamerica/usa/nsc
`website/en/Home/Vehicles/SUVs%20a
`nd%20Crossovers/2015_Traverse/Mod
`el_Overview/01_images/2015-
`chevrolet-traverse-crossover-suv-mo-
`exterior-1480x551-04.jpg
`2013 Sonic, General Motors Copyrighted by General Motors as of
`August 2012; publication on auto-
`brochures.com archived on Apr. 3,
`2014 via the Internet Archive
`organization’s “Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/201404031
`04909/http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Chevrolet/Sonic/
`Chevrolet_US%20Sonic_2013.pdf
`
`V. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A. Anticipation Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`One basis for Petitioner’s challenge to the patentability of the ’120 Patent is
`
`anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102. A patent is invalid or unpatentable as
`
`anticipated if “(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed
`
`publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention; or (2) the claimed invention was
`
`described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent
`
`published or deemed published under section 122(b).” 35 U.S.C. § 102(a