IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial Number: PGR2020-00056
`
`Attorney Ref.: 1330.0012AB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In re U.S. Patent No.: 10,422,617 B2
`
`Filed: June 27, 2019
`
`Issued: September 24, 2019
`
`Petitioner: Apex Tool Group,
`LLC.
`
`
`
`Inventors: Jonathan F. Vitas, Abhijeet A. Khangar
`
`Patent Owner: Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation
`
`Title: Tape Measure with Tape Blade Profile Increasing Tape Standout
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW
`OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 10,422,617
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for PGR of U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617
`
`
` 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` 
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ....................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................ 3
`
`B.
`Related Matters ..................................................................... 3
`
`C.
`Lead and Backup Counsel .................................................... 3
`
`D.
`Service Information............................................................... 3
`III. SERVICE ................................................................................................... 4
`IV. FEES .......................................................................................................... 4
`V. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a)) ........................... 4
`VI.
`INTRODUCTION TO THE CHALLENGE AND RELIEF
`
`REQUESTED ............................................................................................ 4
`VII. SUMMARY OF THE ’617 PATENT ....................................................... 6
`
`A.
`The Specification and Claims ............................................... 6
`
`B.
`The Prosecution History ..................................................... 11
`VIII. GENERAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE SKILLED ARTISAN ................. 11
`IX. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ..................................... 14
`X.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(B)(3)) ........................ 15
`
`A.
`“the upper surface of the elongate blade defines a concave
`surface” ............................................................................... 16
`“the lower surface of the elongate blade defines a convex
`surface” ............................................................................... 19
`“the elongate blade comprising . . . a flat width” ............... 19
`“the elongate blade comprising . . . a curved width” .......... 23
`
`C.
`D.
`
`
`
`
`XI. THE CLAIMS OF THE ’617 PATENT WOULD HAVE BEEN
`
`OBVIOUS ................................................................................................ 25
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-11 would have been obvious based on
`Applicant Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) in light of the
`general knowledge of the skilled artisan ............................. 30 
`1.
`Applicant Admitted Prior Art ................................... 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for PGR of U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617
`
`
` 
`
` 
`Claim 1 ...................................................................... 33
`2.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................... 38
`3.
`Claim 3 ...................................................................... 38
`4.
`Claim 4 ...................................................................... 39
`5.
`Claim 5 ...................................................................... 39
`6.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................... 40
`7.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................... 41
`8.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................... 41
`9.
`10. Claim 9 ...................................................................... 43
`11. Claim 10 .................................................................... 44
`12. Claim 11 .................................................................... 44
`B. Ground 2: Claims 6-7 would have been obvious based on
`AAPA in light of Rutty and the general knowledge of the
`skilled artisan ...................................................................... 45
`1.
`U.S. Patent No. 4,429,462 (“Rutty”) ........................ 46
`2.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................... 48
`3.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................... 48
`C. Ground 3: Claims 8-10 would have been obvious based on
`AAPA in light of Critelli and the general knowledge of the
`skilled artisan ...................................................................... 49
`1
`U.S. Patent No. 7,159,331 (“Critelli”) ...................... 50
`2.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................... 50
`3.
`Claim 9 ...................................................................... 51
`4.
`Claim 10 .................................................................... 52
`D. Ground 4: Claims 1-11 would have been obvious based on
`Craig in light of the general knowledge of the skilled
`artisan .................................................................................. 52 
`1.
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0247716 (“Craig”) ......... 52
`2.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................... 54
`3.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................... 61
`4.
`Claim 3 ...................................................................... 61
`5.
`Claim 4 ...................................................................... 62
`6.
`Claim 5 ...................................................................... 62
`7.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................... 62
`8.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................... 63
`9.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................... 64
`10. Claim 9 ...................................................................... 65
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for PGR of U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`11. Claim 10 .................................................................... 65
`12. Claim 11 .................................................................... 66
`Ground 5: Claims 8-10 would have been obvious based on
`Craig in light of Critelli and the general knowledge of the
`skilled artisan ...................................................................... 67
`1.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................... 67
`2.
`Claim 9 ...................................................................... 68
`3.
`Claim 10 .................................................................... 69
`Ground 6: Claims 1-11 would have been obvious based on
`Murray in light of the general knowledge of the skilled
`artisan .................................................................................. 69
`1.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,769 (“Murray”) ..................... 70
`2.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................... 71
`3.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................... 77 
`4.
`Claim 3 ...................................................................... 78
`5.
`Claim 4 ...................................................................... 78
`6.
`Claim 5 ...................................................................... 78
`7.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................... 79
`8.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................... 79
`9.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................... 80
`10. Claim 9 ...................................................................... 81
`11. Claim 10 .................................................................... 81
`12. Claim 11 .................................................................... 82
`G. Ground 7: Claims 6-7 would have been obvious based on
`Murray in light of Rutty and the general knowledge of the
`skilled artisan ...................................................................... 82
`1.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................... 83
`2.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................... 83
`H. Ground 8: Claims 8-10 would have been obvious based on
`Murray in light of Critelli and the general knowledge of the
`skilled artisan ...................................................................... 84
`1.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................... 85
`
`2.
`Claim 9 ...................................................................... 86
`
`3.
`Claim 10 .................................................................... 86
`
`No Secondary Considerations Support Non-Obviousness . 87
`I.
`
`XII. THE BOARD SHOULD INSTITUTE PGR ........................................... 88
`
`
`
` 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for PGR of U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617
`
`
` 
` 
`XIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 91
`
`
`
` 
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for PGR of U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617
`
`
` 
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` 
`
`Cases 
`
`Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.
`IPR2018-01315, Paper 26 at 22 (PTAB Jan. 3, 2020) ......................................... 31
`Apple Inc. v. Singapore Asahi Chemical & Solder Industries PTE Ltd.
`IPR2019-00377, Paper No. 10 (PTAB May 31, 2019) ........................................ 30
`Arctic Cat, Inc. v. Polaris Industries Inc.
`IPR2017-00433, Paper 17 at 9-10 (PTAB July 5, 2017) ...................................... 87
`Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG
` IPR2019-01586 at 17-18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) .......................................... 89, 91
`Bowtech, Inc. v. MCP IP, LLC
`IPR2019-00380, Paper 15 at 10 ............................................................................ 89
`C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. b/e Aerospace, Inc.
`IPR2017-01275, Paper 12 at 15 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2017) ....................................... 87
`Ceramtec GMBH v. Ceramedic, LLC
`IPR2015-00424, Paper 29 at 12 (PTAB Jun. 27, 2016) ....................................... 41
`Corning Glass Works v. Brenner
`470 F.2d 410 (D.C. Cir. 1972). ............................................................................. 31
`E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V.,
` 4 F.3d 996 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................. 2, 25, 28, 29
`Ex parte Mehmet Arik
`2012-002579 at 5-6 (PTAB Dec. 3, 2013) ........................................................... 31
`Gentiluomo v. Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corp.,
` 36 F. App’x. 433 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ......................................... 26, 58, 61, 66, 69, 91
`Genentech, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc.
` 946 F.3d 1333 ...................................................................................................... 26
`Hobbico, Inc. v. Traxxas, L.P.
`IPR2018-00010, Paper 8 at 19 (PTAB April 19, 2018) ....................................... 90
`In re Brandt
`886 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................... 26, 36
`In re Gee
`614 F. App’x. 495 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................... 87
`
` 
`
`v
`
`

`

` 
`
`Petition for PGR of U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617
`
`
` 
`In re Nomiya
`509 F.2d 566 (C.C.P.A. 1975) ....................................................................... 31, 32
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Ericsson Inc.
`686 F. App’x. 900 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................... 18
`Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc.
` 392 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 26
`Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co.
`780 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 88
`Lowe’s, Cos., Inc. v. Nichia Corp.
`IPR2017-02011, Paper 13 at 18 (PTAB Mar. 12, 2018) ...................................... 87
`Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc.
`579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 19
`Moderna Therapeutics, Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corp.
`IPR2019-00554, Paper No. 8 (PTAB Jul. 24, 2019) ............................................ 30
`Nalox-1 Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Opiant Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`IPR2019-00694, Paper No. 10 (PTAB Sep. 11, 2019) ......................................... 30
`Nitto Denko Corp. v. Hutchinson Technology Inc.
`IPR2018-00955, Paper 7 at 15 (PTAB December 4, 2018) ................................. 90
`Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v. W. Geco LLC
`Paper 18 at 32 (PTAB Mar. 17, 2015) .................................................................. 87
`Pharmastem Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc.
`491 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 32
`Shenzhen Zhiyi Tech Co. v. iRobot Corp.
`IPR2017-02137, Paper 9 at 9-10 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2018) ....................................... 90
`Zip-Top LLC v. Stasher, Inc.
`IPR2018-01216, Paper 14 at 35-36 (PTAB Jan. 17, 2019) .................................. 89
`Zurn Industries, LLC v. Sioux Chief MFG. Co., Inc.
`IPR2018-00975, Paper 9 at 39 (PTAB Nov. 8, 2018) .......................................... 86
`Rules 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ..................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) .............................................................................................. 15
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4)(i) ............................................................................................ 3
`
` 
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for PGR of U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617
`
`
` 
` 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) .................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for PGR of U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617
`
`
` 
`
`EXHIBITS
`
` 
`
`Ex. 1001
`Ex. 1002
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`Ex. 1010
`Ex. 1011
`Ex. 1012
`Ex. 1013
`Ex. 1014
`Ex. 1015
`Ex. 1016
`Ex. 1017
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617 (“the ’617 patent”)
`Curriculum vitae of Dr. Glenn E. Vallee
`List of Materials Considered by Dr. Glenn E. Vallee
`List of Recent Testimony of Dr. Glenn E. Vallee
`Prosecution History for U.S. Patent Application No. 16/113,695
`Opinion of the International Searching Authority on PCT
`Application No. PCT/US2018/047759
`U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617 Prosecution History
`U.S. Patent No. 4,429,462 (“Rutty”)
`U.S. Patent Pub. 2015/0247716 A1 (“Craig”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,769 (“Murray”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,440,502 (“Lee”)
`U.S. Patent Pub. 2007/0079520 (“Levine”)
`U.S. Patent Pub. 2004/0071869 (“Gilliam”)
`U.S. Patent Pub. 2006/0130352 (“Huang”)
`U.S. Patent Pub. 2013/0067759 (“Murray 2”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,159,331 (“Critelli”)
`Declaration of Dr. Glenn E. Vallee
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for PGR of U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617
`
`
` 
`
`
` 
`Apex Tool Group, LLC (“Petitioner”) petitions for post grant review of
`
`claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617 (“the ’617 patent”), attached as Ex.
`
`1001. It is more likely than not Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one
`
`claim challenged in this petition for the following reasons.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Tape measures are common hand tools used to measure length. An
`
`important feature of a tape measure is its “standout”—the length the blade can be
`
`extended before collapsing under its own weight. Greater standout is preferred as
`
`it allows improved ability to measure longer distances without providing additional
`
`support to the blade.
`
`
`
`People of skill in the art (“POSAs”) have known for decades that increasing
`
`standout can be accomplished by changing the tape measure blade’s physical
`
`parameters such as width, thickness, curvature, and shape. In particular, it was
`
`known that using a highly curved blade would result in increased standout.
`
`However, POSAs also understood that high curvature had some disadvantages in
`
`particular tape blade configurations. Thus, persons skilled in the art were required
`
`to balance the benefits and drawbacks of these physical parameters in designing
`
`tape measures for their specific application. This design process is well
`
`understood by tape measure designers and has been fundamentally unchanged for
`
`decades.
`
` 
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for PGR of U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617
`
`
` 
`
`
` 
`The ’617 patent discloses no new techniques for increasing standout.
`
`Rather, its claims recite a specific set of dimensions and ratios for a tape measure’s
`
`physical parameters. The prior art disclosed dimensions and ratios that were almost
`
`identical to those claimed in the patent. In fact, Applicant Admitted Prior Art
`
`disclosed all of the dimensions recited in the sole independent claim of the patent,
`
`except that it disclosed the blade had a flat width of 32 mm, while the claim
`
`required the flat width be “less than 32 mm”. Neither the Applicant nor the
`
`Examiner provided any reason to believe it was critical that the blade have less
`
`than 32 mm in flat width and did not suggest the claimed range provided any
`
`unexpected results. The Examiner issued the patent without a single substantive
`
`office action, and its notice of allowance did not substantively engage with the
`
`prior art or identify any reason that “less than 32 mm” was critical.
`
`“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is
`
`not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine
`
`experimentation.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996,
`
`1006 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, POSAs understood how curvature would affect the
`
`performance of a tape measure blade. The patent owner did no more than conduct
`
`routine optimization and claim ranges of dimensions. The claims of the ’617
`
`patent would have been obvious.
`
` 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for PGR of U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617
`
`
` 
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b), Petitioner submits the following mandatory
`
` 
`
`notices.
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`
`The real party in interest is Apex Tool Group, LLC.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Petitioner is not aware of any other judicial matter that would affect, or be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`affected by, a decision in this proceeding. The parent application to the application
`
`that issued into the ’617 patent remains pending. (U.S. Patent. App. No.
`
`16/113,695.)
`
`
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`Bradley W. Micsky (Reg. No. 57,790)
`Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh &
`Lindquist
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`bmicsky@carlsoncaspers.com
`612-436-9600 (phone)
`612-436-9605 (facsimile)
`
`BACKUP COUNSEL
`Nathan D. Louwagie (Reg. No. 70,075)
`Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh &
`Lindquist
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402 USA
`nlouwagie@carlsoncaspers.com
`612-436-9600 (phone)
`612-436-9605 (facsimile)
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a), a Power of Attorney is submitted with this
`
`Petition.
`
`D. Service Information
`
`Please address all correspondence/service to all counsel listed above.
`
`3
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for PGR of U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617
`
`
` 
` 
`Petitioner consents service by email at apex617pgr@carlsoncaspers.com with
`
`copies to bmicsky@carlsoncaspers.com and nlouwagie@carlsoncaspers.com.
`
`III. SERVICE
`
`
`
`Petitioner has served by FedEx the Petition, Power of Attorney, and
`
`supporting evidence on the Patent Owner and the correspondent attorney of record
`
`of Patent Owner as listed on USPTO PAIR. A certificate of service is attached at
`
`the end of this Petition, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4)(i).
`
`IV. FEES
`
`
`
`The required fees are submitted herewith. If any additional fees are due at
`
`any time during this proceeding, the Patent Office is authorized to charge such fees
`
`to Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh & Lindquist’s Deposit Account No. 502880.
`
`V. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a))
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’617 patent is available for post grant review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting post grant review
`
`challenging claims 1-11 of the ’617 patent on the grounds set forth below.
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION TO THE CHALLENGE AND RELIEF
`REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner requests post grant review of claims 1-11 of the ’617 patent and
`
`that claims 1-11 be found invalid on the following bases:
`
`
`
` 
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for PGR of U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617
`
`
` 
`
` 
`BASIS FOR INVALIDATION
`
`GROUND
`
`CLAIMS
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`1-11
`
`6-7
`
`8-10
`
`1-11
`
`8-10
`
`1-11
`
`6-7
`
`8-10
`
`Obvious over Applicant Admitted Prior Art
`(“AAPA”) in light of the general knowledge of
`the skilled artisan (35 U.S.C. § 103)
`Obvious over AAPA in light of Rutty and the
`general knowledge of the skilled artisan (35
`U.S.C. § 103)
`Obvious over AAPA in light of Critelli and the
`general knowledge of the skilled artisan (35
`U.S.C. § 103)
`Obvious over Craig in light of the general
`knowledge of the skilled artisan (35 U.S.C. §
`103)
`Obvious over Craig in light of Critelli and the
`general knowledge of the skilled artisan (35
`U.S.C. § 103)
`Obvious over Murray in light of the general
`knowledge of the skilled artisan (35 U.S.C. §
`103)
`Obvious over Murray in light of Rutty and the
`general knowledge of the skilled artisan (35
`U.S.C. § 103)
`Obvious over Murray in light of Critelli and the
`general knowledge of the skilled artisan (35
`U.S.C. § 103)
`
`A detailed explanation of why claims 1-11 are invalid is provided below in
`
`
`
`Section XI, especially in light of the supporting evidentiary declaration of Dr.
`
`Glenn E. Vallee (Ex. 1017).
`
`
`
`The ’617 patent claims priority to two provisional applications, the earliest
`
`of which was filed on August 24, 2017. All references cited in this Petition
`
`published or issued more than a year before August 24, 2017 and therefore qualify
`
` 
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for PGR of U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617
`
`
` 
`as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`VII. SUMMARY OF THE ’617 PATENT
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The Specification and Claims
`
`The ’617 patent is directed to tape measures with metal blades.
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 at Fig. 1.) Specifically, the ’617 patent is directed to cross-sectional
`
`profiles of a tape measure blade that purportedly improves the blade’s “standout.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at Abstract.) The patent describes standout as L1 in the following
`
`figure:
`
`(Ex. 1001 at Fig. 4; 7:55-62 (“In general, tape standout distance is the maximum
`6
`
` 
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for PGR of U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617
`
`
` 
` 
`length, L1, of tape blade 14 that can be extended from tape housing 18 when the
`
`tape housing 18 is positioned such that the tape blade exits the housing in a
`
`direction perpendicular to gravity while self-supporting its own weight without
`
`buckling and without additional support being provided other than what the tape
`
`measure housing itself provides (e.g., without the tape blade being supported by
`
`the user’s hand).”)
`
`
`
`As was understood in the prior art (see Section VIII, infra), the ’617 patent
`
`specification recognizes that a tape measure with a blade that has a curved cross
`
`section allowed for greater standout.
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 at Fig. 5.)
`
`As was also known in the prior art (see Section VIII, infra), the ’617 patent
`
`specification states that a cross section with a “relatively aggressive or steep
`
`curved profile shape” can increase standout, but that these steep curved profiles
`
`come with drawbacks including “increasing retraction torque requirements” and a
`
`negative “impact [on the] readability of markings and numbers on the tape blade.”
`
` 
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for PGR of U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617
`
`
` 
`(Ex. 1001 at 4:34-5:5.)
`
` 
`
`
`
`The specification then identifies the preferred embodiment, stating that
`
`“standout can be increased by using a compound curve shape, without increasing
`
`retraction torque requirements.” (Ex. 1001 at 4:64-66.) The specification explains
`
`that in these compound curve shapes “the center region of the tape blade profile
`
`has a more curved (e.g., smaller radius of curvature) shape than the edge regions.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 4:67-5:2.) This compound curve is illustrated in Figure 6:
`
`(Ex. 1001 at Fig. 6, 10:66-11:8.)
`
`
`
`
`
`The only independent claim is claim 1, which is reproduced here:
`1. A tape measure comprising:
`a housing;
`a tape reel rotatably mounted within the housing;
`an elongate blade wound around the reel, the elongate blade
`comprising:
`
`an upper surface;
`
`
`
` 
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for PGR of U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617
`
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`a lower surface;
`a curved profile such that the upper surface of the
`elongate blade defines a concave surface and the lower
`
`surface defines a convex surface;
`
`a flat width greater than or equal to 29 mm and less than
`
`32 mm;
`
`a curved width between 20 mm and 23 mm;
`
`a curved height between 7 mm and 10 mm;
`
`wherein a ratio of the curved width to the flat width is
`
`less than 0.8;
`
`wherein a ratio of curved height to flat width is greater
`
`than 0.24; and
`
`a retraction system coupled to the tape reel, wherein the
`
`retraction system drives rewinding of the elongate blade on the
`
`tape reel.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 18:37-57.)
`
`
`
`Note that this claim does not include any element that requires the
`
`compound curvature described in the above preferred embodiment. (Ex. 1017 at
`
`¶ 30.) For example, there is no claim element related to the curvature at different
`
`portions of the tape blade. (Id.) There is no element that discusses any arc lengths
`
`or discusses the use (or lack) of multiple different arc lengths. (Id.) In fact, none
`
`of the 11 claims in the ’617 patent require that the blade have a compound curved
`
`shape. (Id.)
`
`Instead, claim 1 simply recites ranges of flat width, curved width, and
`9
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for PGR of U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617
`
`
` 
` 
`curved height dimensions, as well as ratios of the relationships between these
`
`dimensions. (Ex. 1017 at ¶ 31.) The ‘617 patent makes broad statements of the
`
`potential ranges for physical dimensions, stating that the flat width “is between 20
`
`mm and 40 mm” and “[i]n specific embodiments, the flat width . . . is 25 mm to 32
`
`mm, . . . 25 mm, 27 mm, 30 mm, 32 mm, 33 mm or 35 mm.” (Ex. 1001 at 8:40-
`
`44.) But the patent does not even suggest, let alone provide evidence, that these
`
`ranges of dimensions are critical or provide unexpected results. (Ex. 1017 at ¶ 31.)
`
`This lack of criticality extends to the other dimensions disclosed as well as the
`
`numerous comparative ratios discussed throughout the ’617 patent. (See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1001 at 8:65-9:2 (“In various embodiments, H1 is greater than 7 mm, specifically
`
`is between 7 mm and 10 mm, and more specifically between 8.5 and 9.4 mm.”).)
`
`
`
`Instead, the specification shows that there was nothing unexpected about the
`
`tested dimensions. Much of the disclosure of the specification is based on
`
`mathematical modeling of tape blades with specific dimensions. (See Ex. 1001 at
`
`15:10-16:67 (Table 3 and accompanying description), Fig. 13.) Through this
`
`modeling the applicants state they were able to determine the standout and energy
`
`requirements of a variety of blades with different dimensions. (Id.) This shows
`
`that far from discovering something unexpected, the tape blades disclosed by the
`
`Patent Owner acted exactly as a POSA would expect. (Ex. 1017 at ¶ 32.)
`
` 
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for PGR of U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617
`
`
` 
`
`
`The Prosecution History
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`The ’617 patent claims issued from Application No. 16/455,337 (“the ’337
`
`application”), which was filed on June 27, 2019. (Ex. 1001.) The ’337 application
`
`claims priority as a continuation of application No. 16/113,695 (“the parent
`
`application”), filed on August 27, 2018, which claimed priority as a continuation of
`
`application No. PCT/US2018/047759 (“the PCT application”), filed on August 23,
`
`2018. (Id.) The ’337 application also identifies two provisional applications, the
`
`earliest of which was filed on August 24, 2017. (Id.) Accordingly, the earliest
`
`possible priority date available for the ’617 patent is August 24, 2017.
`
`The parent U.S. application is awaiting examination. (See generally Ex.
`
`1005.) There have been no office actions on that application. (Id.)
`
`A Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority on the PCT
`
`application issued on December 7, 2018 and found all pending claims invalid for
`
`lacking novelty and/or inventive step. (Ex. 1006.)
`
`The ’617 patent at issue here was allowed without any office actions or
`
`rejections. (See generally Ex. 1007.) The notice of allowance did not provide a
`
`reason for allowance that included any analysis of the claims or any specific prior
`
`art references. (Id. at -016-023.)
`
`VIII. GENERAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE SKILLED ARTISAN
`
`Tape measures with coilable metal blades had been used for decades before
`
` 
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for PGR of U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617
`
`
` 
` 
`the priority date of the ’617 patent. (See, e.g., Ex. 1017 at ¶ 34; Ex. 1008 at 1:7-
`
`11.1)
`
`(Ex. 1008, Fig. 1.)
`
`
`
`These tape measures had also used blades with curved cross sections to
`
`stiffen the blade and increase standout. (Ex. 1017 at ¶ 35; Ex. 1008 at 1:12-16.)
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1008, Fig. 5.)
`
`
`
`Standout was known to be important to users of tape measures because it
`
`allowed them to “bridge doorways, shaftways, excavations and the like with the
`
`unsupported blade.” (Ex. 1017 at ¶ 36; Ex. 1008 at 1:16-18.)
`
`Moreover, it was known that increasing the curvature of the blade would
`
` 
`1 U.S. Patent No. 4,429,462 (“Rutty”) was issued on February 7, 1984, and is
`
`therefore prior art to the ’617 patent. Rutty is attached as Ex. 1008.
`
` 
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for PGR of U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617
`
`
` 
` 
`increase standout more than 30 years before the priority date of the ’617 patent.
`
`(Ex. 1017 at ¶ 37.) Rutty, filed in 1982, stated that:
`
`It is known that the degree of curvature or cross section will
`influence and substantially determine the standout length (the length
`of the blade which can be extended unsupported without collapsing at
`the support point) or breakpoint (the point at which the unsupported
`rule will collapse) for a rule of any particular width, thickness and
`metal characteristics.
`(Id. at 1:18-25 (emphasis added).)
`
`
`
`However, the POSA would also know that too high of a degree of
`
`curvature would cause drawbacks such as increased power requirements for
`
`a spring to retract the blade and difficulty reading the labeling on the blade.
`
`(Ex. 1017 at ¶ 38; Id. at 1:37-52.)
`
`
`
`People of skill also knew that the exact dimensions of the cross section
`
`would vary depending on a number of factors, and a POSA would know how to
`
`conduct routine optimization to determine those dimensions. (Ex. 1017 at ¶ 39;
`
`Ex. 1008 at 6:37-42 (“The length of the radii in, and the heights of, the concavo-
`
`convex cross section, will vary with the metal employed, the width of the strip, the
`
`physical characteristics of the metal, etc. Such radii and heights will be readily
`
`apparent to those having ordinary skill in this art with the teaching of this
`
`specification before them.”).)
`
` 
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for PGR of U.S. Patent No. 10,422,617
`
`
` 
`
` 
`When working to optimize these dimensions, a POSA would understand that
`
`a primary concern when developing the geometry of a tape blade to increase
`
`standout would be to optimize the area moment of inertia of the cross section of the
`
`curved blade so that it could withstand more downward force from gravity without
`
`collapsing. (Ex. 1017 at ¶ 40; see also Ex. 1009 at [0035].2) A POSA would
`
`easily understand how