UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`J SQUARED, INC. d/b/a UNIVERSITY LOFT COMPANY
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SAUDER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-00774
`Patent No. 8,585,136
`
`CHAIR WITH COUPLING
`COMPANION STOOL BASE
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before LINDA E. HORNER, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and JAMES A. WORTH,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`______________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`J SQUARED, INC. d/b/a UNIVERSITY LOFT COMPANY
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SAUDER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-00774
`Patent No. 8,585,136
`
`CHAIR WITH COUPLING
`COMPANION STOOL BASE
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before LINDA E. HORNER, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and JAMES A. WORTH,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner, Sauder Manufacturing Company, respectfully requests the
`
`opportunity for oral argument on April 21, 2016, in accordance with the Board’s
`
`Scheduling Order dated August 24, 2015.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner suggests that oral argument with respect to both of the
`
`pending IPR2015-00774 and IPR2015-00958 be made at the same hearing, and the
`
`following issues be addressed with respect to IPR2015-00774:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Based on a preponderance of evidence, including the overall teaching
`
`of the patent document and the unrebutted testimony of three PHOSITAS:
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`Is it most reasonable to construe the term “combination” as a
`
`closed-ended term limiting the invention to just two units; a floor rocker and a
`
`base, both of which play a necessary role in the recited configurations?
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Is it most reasonable to construe the term “chair” as referring to
`
`a “desk chair”?
`
`
`
`
`
`c.
`
`Is it most reasonable to construe the term “stool base” to a base
`
`having a relatively flat smooth unrimmed top suitable for use as a writing surface,
`
`a support surface for a laptop or the like, and a sitting surface?
`
`
`
`
`
`d.
`
`It is most reasonable to construe the term “user” as informing
`
`the balance of the claim and the structural limitations therein as making the chair
`
`unsuitable for use by an infant?
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e.
`
`Is it most reasonable to construe the term “saddle” consistent
`
`with the use of the same term in the patent specification to define certain
`
`characteristics of the top of the base?
`
`
`
`
`
`f.
`
`Is it most reasonable to construe the term “accessible” as a
`
`height limitation for the base necessary to achieve the recited “companion”
`
`relationship between the floor rocker and the base when used as a writing surface
`
`for a person seated in the floor rocker?
`
`
`
`
`
`g.
`
`Is it most reasonable to construe the term “pedestal” as
`
`consistent with the same term used in the patent specification and drawing to
`
`expressly define a single columnar type base?
`
`
`
`
`
`h.
`
`Is it most reasonable to construe the phrase “assembly
`
`positioned below said sitting portion” as defining a specific location for the
`
`structure that enables the coupling function and specifies the location and function
`
`of the rocker rails?
`
`
`
`
`
`i.
`
`Is it most reasonable to construe the term “alternatively” in
`
`claim 1 as allowing two different but not mutually exclusive uses of the base?
`
`
`
`
`
`j. What are the most reasonable interpretations of the claim terms
`
`“lower portion” particularly in view of the Board’s previous construction of the
`
`term “coupling”?
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Is Patent Owner’s construction of the language of claim 4 in defining
`
`the structural character and location of the attachment points between the rocker
`
`rails and the seat bottom the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim and
`
`does that construction reflect on the locational language “assembly positioned
`
`below” in claim 1?
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Does the “corresponding structure” of the “means plus function”
`
`limitation in claim 12 necessarily include at least the clip clamp and the claw in
`
`view of the fact that the function recited deals only with the engagement of the
`
`chair with the base and not with the disengagement, the unrebutted evidence
`
`proving that the function is not and cannot be achieved by the clip clamp alone,
`
`and the nearly identical language in the specification relating both claw and clamp
`
`to the “releasably engage” function?
`
`
`
`4.
`
`The broader question as to whether Patent Owner’s narrower but fully
`
`supported constructions of claims better serve the public interest as compared to
`
`the ultra-broad constructions proffered by Petitioner that take claim scope beyond
`
`the actual teachings of the patent.
`
`
`
`5. Whether it is necessary or even informative in this case for a
`
`PHOSITA to consult the file history to correctly construe the claims?
`
`
`
`6.
`
`If Petitioner and/or the Board correctly evaluated the scope and
`
`content of the prior art, particularly:
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`a. Whether the Mackey patent has “identity” with the inventions
`
`of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10 and 11 and discloses all of those claims;
`
`
`
`b. Whether Pollack I and II make the invention as defined by
`
`claims 1, 2 and 6-14 obvious;
`
`
`
`c. Whether the Pollack patents disclose a “stool base” and/or a
`
`“pedestal” base or a “saddle;”
`
`
`
`d. Whether the Pollack patents disclose a structure capable of
`
`“coupling” as the Board has construed the term;
`
`
`
`e. Whether the Pollack patents disclose a structure capable of
`
`“releasably engaging” as the Board has construed the term; and
`
`
`
`f. Whether the Pollack patents disclose a base capable of
`
`providing a tilting or swivel function for a chair releasably engaged and/or
`
`coupled to it.
`
`
`
`g. Whether Pollack’s latching mechanisms have been proven to be
`
`an equivalent of the corresponding structure of the ‘136 patent, claim 12.
`
`
`
`7. Whether the declarants for Patent Owner are in substantial agreement
`
`as to claim scope, and whether any disparity between them is material and/or
`
`prejudicial to Patent Owner’s evidentiary presentation;
`
`
`
`8. Whether Petitioner’s arguments for anticipation and obviousness are
`
`based entirely on concepts and conclusions of counsel as opposed to evidence
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`dealing with the technical content of the prior art, the level of skill in the art and
`
`the avoidance of hindsight.
`
`
`
`9. Whether industry praise must come from a PHOSITA to be relevant
`
`particularly where the technology of the invention is readily understood by lay
`
`persons;
`
`
`
`10. Whether Patent Owner’s unrefuted evidence including Petitioner’s
`
`own commercial statements establishes a nexus between the claimed invention and
`
`the objective factors of praise; commercial success, and copying;
`
`
`
`11. Whether any or all of the objective factors must necessarily derive
`
`from an individual novel element as opposed to the claimed combination as a
`
`whole;
`
`
`
`12. Whether Petitioner has established its positions by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence given the omission by Petitioner to submit any testimonial evidence
`
`from a PHOSITA or other eligible witness;
`
`
`
`13. Has Patent Owner provided sufficient evidence to show commercial
`
`success in a relevant market?
`
`
`
`14. Whether Patent Owner has waived argument as to the construction
`
`and/or validity of any claim?
`
`
`
`15. Such other and additional questions as Petitioner may raise in its
`
`argument as well as any additional issues on which the Board seeks clarification.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`For the oral argument, Patent Owner does not require the use of audiovisual
`
`equipment to display demonstrative exhibits, but will likely bring to the argument
`
`the commercial products of Patent Owner and Petitioner for the Board’s
`
`inspection. Patent Owner requests that the oral arguments for both IPR2015-00774
`
`and IPR2015-00998 be held concurrently and requests two hours for Patent
`
`Owner’s oral argument.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`YOUNG BASILE HANLON & MACFARLANE PC
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Thomas N. Young
`THOMAS N. YOUNG (P22656)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane P.C.
`3001 W. Big Beaver Rd. Suite 624
`Troy, MI 48084
`(248) 649-3333
`
`
`
`7
`
`Dated: March 28, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`William F. Bahret,
`Reg. No. 31,087
`Bahret & Associates LLC
`320 N. Meridian St., Suite 510
`Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.205(b), the undersigned certifies
`
`that on March 28, 2016, a complete and entire copy of Patent Owner’s Request for
`Oral Argument was provided via Federal Express, to the Petitioner by serving the
`correspondence address of record as follows:
`
`Stephen F. Rost
`Reg. No. 61,983
`Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
`One Indiana Square, Suite 3500
`Indianapolis, IN 46204
`
`Scott A. McKeown
`Oblon LLP
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`
`
`Timothy Eagle
`Reg. No. 31755
`Varnum Riddering Schmidt
`& Howlett, LLP
`333 Bridge Street NW
`P.O. Box 352
`Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Thomas N. Young
`
`
`
`8
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
