Paper 35
`Date: June 27, 2016
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`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 8,585,136 B2
`____________
`
`Before LINDA E. HORNER, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and JAMES A.
`WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00774
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`A. Background
`Petitioner, J Squared, Inc. d/b/a University Loft Company
`(“J Squared”), filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting institution of an
`inter partes review of claims 1‒14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,585,136 B2 (“the
`’136 patent,” Ex. 1001). Patent Owner, Sauder Manufacturing Company
`(“Sauder”), filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We instituted an inter partes review based on the grounds that claims
`1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, and 11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
`anticipated by Mackey1 and claims 1, 2, and 6‒14 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Pollack II2 and Pollack I.3 Paper 7
`(“Decision” or “Dec.”).4 Sauder subsequently filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 13, “PO Resp.”), to which J Squared replied (Paper 21,
`“Pet. Reply”). An oral hearing was conducted on April 21, 2016, and a
`transcript of that hearing has been entered into the record (Paper 34, “Tr.”).
`For the reasons explained below, and on the record now before us, we
`determine the following: (1) J Squared has shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 1, 2, 8, 10, and 11 are anticipated by Mackey;
`(2) J Squared has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims
`4 and 5 are anticipated by Mackey; (3) J Squared has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 6‒8, 10, and 11 are
`unpatentable as obvious over Pollack II and Pollack I; and (4) J Squared has
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 794,461 issued to Mackey (July 11, 1905) (Ex. 1003).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 2,689,598 issued to Pollack (Sept. 21, 1954) (Ex. 1005).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 2,644,506 issued to Pollack (July 7, 1953) (Ex. 1006).
`4 We did not institute inter partes review of claim 3 based on any ground.
`2
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 9 and 12‒14 are
`unpatentable as obvious over Pollack II and Pollack I.
`B. Related Matters
`Sauder has sued J Squared for infringing the ’136 patent in Sauder
`Manufacturing Company v. J Squared, Inc. d/b/a University Loft Company,
`Case No. 3:14-cv-00962-JZ, pending in the United States District Court for
`the Northern District of Ohio (“the infringement litigation”). Pet. 2. The
`district court issued a Markman Order in the infringement litigation on June
`9, 2015. Ex. 3001.
`J Squared also challenged claims 1, 2, and 4‒14 of the ’136 patent in a
`petition for inter partes review filed on March 27, 2015. J Squared, Inc. v.
`Sauder Mfg. Co., Case IPR2015-00958 (“the related petition”). We
`instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 2, and 4‒14 in the related petition
`and consolidated the proceedings solely for the purpose of conducting an
`oral hearing. IPR2015-00958, Papers 7, 30. We issue concurrently with this
`decision a separate Final Written Decision in the related proceeding.
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/596,623, filed January 14, 2015, now
`U.S. Patent No. 9,370,249, issued June 21, 2016, is a continuation of U.S.
`Patent Application No. 14/057,781 (’781 application), filed October 18,
`2013, now U.S. Patent No. 8,960,787 B2 (’787 patent), which is a
`continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/277,778, filed October 20,
`2011, now the ’136 patent, which Petitioner challenges in the present matter.
`J Squared also challenged claims 1‒21 of the ’787 patent in a petition for
`inter partes review filed on December 29, 2015. J Squared, Inc. v. Sauder
`Mfg. Co., Case IPR2016-00413 (“the ’413 IPR”). Sauder filed a Patent
`Owner Preliminary Response, and the Board issued a decision in the ’413
`IPR denying institution on June 9, 2016.
`3
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`
`
`C. The ’136 Patent
`The ’136 patent is directed to “a chair with a coupling companion
`stool base.” Ex. 1001, 1:49. “The chair portion has a frame that may be
`supported above a generally horizontal surface by the base, which base
`releasably couples with the frame.” Id. at 1:58‒60. The ’136 describes:
`When the frame is decoupled from the base, the frame forming
`the chair portion is adapted for use as casual floor rocker seating,
`and the base is adapted to provide a companion stool upon which
`a user may sit or, alternatively, a side table which may be
`positioned adjacent to the chair portion.
`
`Id. at 2:17‒22.
`Figures 1 and 18 depict chair portion 100 and base portion 300 in
`coupled and uncoupled configurations, respectively. Id. at 4:21‒23.
`Figures 1 and 18 are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a perspective view of a chair coupled to a companion stool
`base in a task chair configuration. Figure 18 depicts a perspective view of
`an uncoupled chair and companion stool base in a nested configuration.
`
`As depicted in Figures 1 and 18, chair portion 100 includes frame 102,
`which has upper portion 104 and lower portion 106. Id. at 4:24‒26. Legs
`4
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`180 extend generally downward from lower portion 106 and are configured
`as rockers, so as to render the chair portion capable of use as a floor rocker
`when the chair is set upon a generally horizontal supporting surface. Id. at
`6:36‒39, 45‒46. Upper portion 104 provides a back rest and lower portion
`106 includes a sitting portion. Id. at 4:33, 61‒62. Base portion 300 has
`saddle 310, which is connected via post 334 to five legs 330. Id. at 7:20‒28.
`Figures 11 and 12 depict coupling of chair portion 100 and base
`portion 300. Figures 11 and 12 are reproduced below.
`
`
`Figures 11 and 12 depict side elevation views showing coupling and
`uncoupling of chair portion and companion stool base portion, with a portion
`chair portion and stool base portion in cross section.
`As depicted in Figures 11 and 12, lower portion 106 includes claw
`142 and clip clamp latch 160. Id. at 4:64‒67. Claw 142 and clip clamp latch
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`160 function to engage releasably with saddle 310 of base 300. Id. at 5:24‒
`26, 60‒62. Claw 142 is a fixed member, and latch 160 is connected
`hingedly so as to be movable. Id. at 5:62‒67. Lower portion 106 also
`includes receptacle 190 (not visible in the figures reproduced above) that has
`a generally trapezoidal geometry which corresponds with saddle 310 for
`unitary keying alignment of chair portion 100 with base portion 300. Id. at
`6:63‒7:5. In use, chair portion 100 and base portion 300 may be separate,
`with chair portion 100 providing casual rocker seating to a user, and base
`portion 300 engaged by the user or another user as a work surface, a writing
`surface, or a sitting surface. Id. at 8:12‒19.
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and is
`reproduced below.
`1.
`A combination of a chair and a stool base portion, said
`chair comprising:
`an upper portion providing a backrest for support for a first
`
`user;
`
`a lower portion connected to said upper portion and having
`a sitting portion for supporting said first user in a seated position;
`said stool base portion adapted to support said chair, and
`comprising a saddle adapted to releasably engage said chair;
`said combination is configurable in a first configuration
`with said chair being coupled to said saddle, and said sitting
`portion being positioned above said saddle;
`said combination is manually convertible between said
`first configuration and a second configuration, where said second
`configuration comprises said chair still functioning as a chair for
`said first user, and said stool functioning so that said saddle is
`accessible to said first user as a work surface or, alternatively, so
`that said saddle is accessible to a second user as a sitting surface;
`and
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`further comprises an assembly
`said combination
`positioned below said sitting portion and forming at least a pair
`of base legs which are structured so as to function as rockers for
`said chair when said combination is in said second configuration.
`Ex. 1001, 10:22‒46.
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`The Board interprets a claim of an unexpired patent using the
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs,
`LLC v. Lee, No. 15‒446, __ S. Ct. __, 2016 WL 3369425, at *12 (U.S. June
`20, 2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard). Claim terms also are given their ordinary and customary meaning
`as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of
`the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`(Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in
`the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`In the Petition, J Squared proposed constructions for “coupled,”
`“engaged,” “assembly,” “positioned below,” “function as rockers,”
`“rotationally asymmetric,” “latch moving between closed and open
`positions,” “a pedestal that . . . includes a connector,” and “means for
`releasably engaging said chair to said base portion.” Pet. 10–18. Sauder
`contested several of J Squared’s proposed constructions for these claim
`terms and additionally proposed its own constructions for “combination of a
`chair and a stool base portion,” “first configuration,” and “accessible.”
`Prelim. Resp. 10‒17. In the Decision instituting trial, we preliminarily
`7
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`construed “assembly,” “positioned below,” “structured so as to function as
`rockers,” “coupled,” “engaged,” “first configuration,” “accessible,”
`“perimeter edge . . . with a rotationally asymmetric geometry,”5 “latch
`moving between closed and open positions,” “pedestal that . . . includes a
`connector,” and “means for releasably engaging said chair to said base
`portion.” Dec. 10‒22. In doing so, we considered constructions of
`“coupled,” “assembly,” and “rockers” that were issued by the district court
`in a Markman Order issued in the corresponding district court litigation
`involving the ’136 patent. Ex. 3001.
`In its Patent Owner Response, Sauder proffered constructions of the
`terms “combination,” “user,” “stool base,” “saddle,” “assembly,” “or,
`alternatively,” “generally arcuately downward from,” “pedestal,” and
`“manually operable means for releasably engaging said chair to said base
`portion.” PO Resp. 15‒23. In its Petitioner Reply, J Squared contested
`many of Sauder’s proposed constructions for these claim terms. Pet.
`Reply 5‒12.
`For purposes of reaching our determination as to the patentability of
`the instituted claims over the prior art, we provide a final construction of the
`following claim language.
`1. “combination”
`The preamble of claim 1 recites “A combination of a chair and a stool
`base portion, said chair comprising: . . . .” Ex. 1001, 10:22‒23. The body of
`
`
`5 This claim language appears only in dependent claim 3, on which the
`USPTO did not institute an inter partes review.
`8
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`the claim recites elements of the chair and stool base, and also calls for the
`combination to further comprise an assembly. Id. at 10:24‒46.
`Sauder argues that the claim is limited to the combination of only a
`chair and a stool base portion as the two units that make up the claimed
`“combination.” PO Resp. 15 (noting that the preamble does not use the
`open-ended term “comprising” immediately after the word “combination”).
`Sauder is, in essence, seeking to have the Board rewrite the claim to
`recite, “A combination consisting of a chair and a stool base portion.” We
`see no reason to narrow the claim, particularly when the body of the claim
`itself recites “said combination further comprises an assembly . . . .”
`Ex. 1001, 10:42. For these reasons, we construe “combination” to include,
`but not be limited to, a chair and a stool base portion.
`2. “user”
`The claim language refers to the combination chair and stool base
`portion being used by a first user and a second user. Id. at 10:24‒46. Sauder
`contends that the meaning of “user” in the claimed combination does not
`encompass “infants, toddlers or invalids.” PO Resp. 16. Sauder posits that
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of “user” means “full sized, normally
`active persons capable of working, writing, and sitting in open seated desk
`chairs.” Id. Sauder points to alleged descriptive support in the ’136 patent
`for this interpretation. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:49‒57, 8:36‒38).
`The ’136 patent describes the invention as “a chair with a coupling
`companion stool base” that is “directed to the contemporary lifestyle needs
`of active users, including a range of functions from task seating at a work
`surface to casual relaxation” and that the “multi-tasking seating unit of the
`invention” is “suitable in any environment.” Ex. 1001, 1:49‒57. Although
`the ’136 patent refers to the combination chair portion 100 and base portion
`9
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`300 providing “a task chair or desk chair for a user,” the patent refers to the
`chair with coupling companion stool base shown in Figures 1‒23 as a
`“preferred embodiment.” Id. at 4:18‒20, 8:36‒38. As such, the ’136 patent
`does not make clear that the “invention” is limited to a particular type of
`chair used by a particular user.
`As noted by J Squared, Sauder’s declarants do not agree as to the
`specific user to which the claimed chair is directed. Pet. Reply 5 (citing PO
`Resp. 16 (positing that the invention was designed for college students);
`Ex. 1027, 22:9‒23:11 (Mr. Warncke testifying that although the user
`described in the ’136 patent is different from the user of the Mackey chair,
`there is no explicit requirement in the claims of the ’136 patent for a specific
`type of user); Ex. 1028, 54:7‒62:16 (Mr. Bontrager testifying that the
`claimed user is an individual that is 12 years of age or older)). The intrinsic
`and extrinsic evidence does not support an interpretation of “user” that is
`limited to a particular class of user. As such, we decline to limit the “user”
`referred to in the claims to a specific intended user that is not explicitly
`recited in the claim language and is not supported by the Specification.
`3. “stool base portion”
`Claim 1 recites, “[a] combination of a chair and a stool base portion . .
`. said stool base portion adapted to support said chair.” Sauder argues that
`“stool base” has a clear meaning, and further asserts that “ ‘[s]tool,’ although
`it can have different leg configurations, is a seating unit with a top surface
`upon which a person can sit.” PO Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:14‒17;
`Ex. 2039, ¶ 17:D-E (Mr. Harting’s testimony proposing a definition of “stool
`base” as “a seating device which is armless and backless with a flat level
`surface and appropriate legs”); Ex. 2008, 24‒26 (Mr. Bontrager’s testimony
`proposing a definition of “stool” as “a backless, armless item of furniture for
`10
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`use as a seat”). Sauder further posits that a reasonable construction does not
`include a chest of drawers or table with a rotatable surface. Id. at 18 (citing
`Ex. 2008, 24‒26; Ex. 2022 (Google Image Search of “stool seat”)).
`J Squared agrees with Sauder’s construction of “stool” as being a
`seating unit with a top surface upon which a person can sit. Pet. Reply 6.
`J Squared argues that the definitions proffered by Messrs. Harting and
`Bontrager contradict other exhibits and are unduly narrow. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1027, 31:10‒22; Ex. 2021; Ex. 2022; Ex. 1, 37:8‒9).
`As pointed out by J Squared (Pet. Reply at 6), the full definition of
`stool is “a seat usually without back or arms supported by three or four legs
`or by a central pedestal.” Ex. 2021 (definition 1a) (emphasis added).
`Further, as noted by J Squared (Pet. Reply at 6), the Google Image Search
`shows some stools having backs. Pet. Reply at 6 (citing Ex. 2022 (green
`stool on page 1; silver, yellow, red, and wood stools on page 2). Indeed,
`even Sauder’s own product literature uses the term “stool” for chairs having
`backs. Ex. 2047 (Sauder PlyLok sales literature showing counter and bar
`“stools” having backs).
`The ’136 patent shows a preferred embodiment of stool base portion
`300 that is backless and armless; however, the ’136 patent does not define
`explicitly “stool” to mean an armless and backless seating device. The
`ordinary meaning of stool encompasses seating devices at least having
`backs. We decline to incorporate the preferred embodiment disclosed in the
`Specification into “stool” to limit the term to a meaning narrower than the
`ordinary meaning. Thus, the claim term “stool base portion” is not limited
`to a seating device that is backless and armless. Rather, we interpret “stool
`
`11
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`base portion” as a lower portion of the claimed combination that is a seating
`device capable of supporting the chair atop it.
`4. “saddle”
`Claim 1 recites “said stool base portion . . . comprising a saddle
`adapted to releasably engage said chair . . . said stool functioning so that said
`saddle is accessible to said first user as a work surface or, alternatively, so
`that said saddle is accessible to a second user as a sitting surface.”
`Sauder argues that “saddle” has “a special meaning in the ‘136
`Patent.” PO Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:45‒56). Sauder notes that claim 1
`recites that the saddle is the base component to which the chair is “releasably
`engaged” and “coupled.” Id. Sauder posits that “[t]o satisfy the
`‘configurations’ enumerated in claim 1, the saddle must have a level, flat
`surface with a specially configured perimeter edge” and that “[i]t must fit, in
`at least one orientation, between the rocker legs and cooperatively receive
`the latch and claw to engage with and be coupled to the seat structure.” Id.
`(citing Ex. 2008, 27‒29). J Squared disagrees that “saddle” has a “special
`meaning” and argues that Sauder’s interpretation impermissibly substitutes
`the description of the “saddle” from the Specification into the plain language
`of the claim. Pet. Reply 6‒7.
`The term “saddle” is not a term of art in the art of seating. Ex. 2008,
`27. The word “saddle” has many meanings.6 The ordinary meaning that
`makes the most sense in the context of the ’136 patent is “a device mounted
`as a support and often shaped to fit the object held.” Ex. 3004 (definition 2).
`The ’136 patent does not provide an explicit lexicographical definition of
`
`6 The full definition of “saddle” in the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary
`includes six different meanings. Ex. 3004 (full definition from
`www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/saddle).
`12
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`“saddle.” The ’136 patent describes a preferred embodiment of saddle 310
`as “a generally planar member” having “a top surface 312” with a perimeter
`edge with front and back edges 314 and 316. Ex. 1001, 7:45‒51. The ’136
`patent describes that the front edge 314 cooperates with the frame lower
`portion claw 142 whereby the front edge is releasably captured in the claw,
`and the back edge 316 cooperates with the frame lower portion latch 160
`whereby the back edge is releasably captured by the latch. Id. at 7:52‒56.
`Mr. Bontrager testifies that “[t]he term saddle implies it can be
`straddled just as a person straddles a saddle when on a horse” and that in the
`second configuration, the person using the stool base as a stool straddles the
`stool base, capturing the saddle between their legs, and in a first
`configuration, the base rocker legs straddle the stool base.” Ex. 2008, 27.
`Mr. Bontrager also discusses several aspects of the “saddle” that are recited
`in some of the dependent claims. Id. at 27‒29 (discussing features of claims
`2, 3, 7, 8, and 9).
`As noted by J Squared (Pet. Reply at 7), Sauder’s special meaning
`ascribed to “saddle” is belied by the doctrine of claim differentiation.
`Several of the features attributable by Sauder to the term “saddle” are
`specifically recited in the dependent claims. For example, dependent claim
`3 further defines the saddle having a top surface and a perimeter edge that
`defines the top surface with a rotationally asymmetric geometry that
`corresponds with the receptacle on the lower portion to allow the base and
`frame to couple only in one specific rotational orientation. Dependent claim
`7 further recites that the saddle cooperates with a lower portion latch so that
`the saddle is releasably captured by said latch. Dependent claim 8 further
`
`13
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`recites that the saddle comprises a top surface that faces upward and defines
`at least one of a working surface, a writing surface, and a sitting surface.
`The ’136 patent shows a preferred embodiment of saddle 310 having a
`flat surface with a specially configured perimeter edge and that fits, in at
`least one orientation, between the rocker legs and cooperatively receives the
`latch and claw to engage with and be coupled to the seat structure. The ’136
`patent, however, does not define “saddle” to be limited to the described
`preferred embodiment. As such, we decline to import limitations from the
`preferred embodiment into the interpretation of “saddle,” particularly in light
`of the fact that several of the dependent claims further recite the features
`asserted by Sauder to be encompassed by the word “saddle.”
`Mr. Bontrager also posits that “the saddle functions as a level work
`surface, sitting surface, and writing surface.” Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1001,
`claim 1, 10:40‒41 and claim 8, 11:16‒19). Neither claim 1 nor claim 8 uses
`the term “level” when reciting the saddle. Sauder’s counsel acknowledged
`at the oral hearing that the ’136 patent does not describe the saddle as having
`to be level, and that the saddle is described as being able to tilt with respect
`to the base. Tr. 36:16‒25.
`We interpret “saddle” in keeping with its ordinary meaning and in
`light of the Specification to be a generally flat support on the stool base
`portion that is shaped to fit the chair atop it.
`5. “assembly” and “positioned below”
`Claim 1 recites, “said combination further comprises an assembly
`positioned below said sitting portion and forming at least a pair of base legs
`which are structured so as to function as rockers for said chair when said
`combination is in said second configuration.” Ex. 1001, 10:42‒46.
`
`14
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`As we noted in our Decision on Institution:
`The district court construed “assembly” to mean a
`“structural unit positioned below [a] seat to support [the] seat and
`provide rockers.” Ex. 3001, 3 (referring to the assembly shown
`in Figure 17 and noting that it is a “single molded plastic
`assembly”). The district court declined to adopt Petitioner’s
`proffered construction of “assembly” as being “a collection of
`manufactured parts fitted together, distinct from the lower
`portion and its sitting portion, and from the upper portion.” Id.
`Dec. 10.
`We interpreted “assembly” in our Decision on Institution as follows:
`The ’136 patent does not use the term “assembly” in
`describing the combination chair and stool base portion. The
`’136 patent describes an exemplary embodiment in which chair
`portion 100 is formed with frame 102, which has upper portion
`104 and lower portion 106. Ex. 1001, 4:21‒26. Upper portion
`104 provides a back rest and lower portion 106 includes a sitting
`portion and two frame legs 180. Id. at 4:33, 4:61‒5:3. Legs 180
`appear to be an integrally formed part of frame 102 in the
`exemplary embodiment. Id. at Fig. 17.
`The language of claim 1, however, simply calls for the
`assembly to be “positioned below” said sitting portion, where
`said sitting portion is defined to be part of the lower portion of
`the chair. The claim language does not call for the assembly to
`be integrally formed as part of the lower portion.
`Further, the ordinary meaning of the term “assembly”
`implies a chair formed from multiple parts. Ex. 3002. The
`breadth of the claim language is such that any means of
`attaching/incorporating the base legs so that they are positioned
`below the sitting portion of the chair and so that the legs function
`as rockers for the chair when the chair is in the second
`configuration, would be encompassed by the language of the
`claim.
`Id. at 10‒11 (footnote omitted). Based on these findings, we determined
`that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language,
`
`15
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`“assembly” encompasses “both base legs formed integrally with the lower
`portion and base legs otherwise incorporated into or attached to so that they
`are positioned below the sitting portion of the chair.” Id. at 11.
`
`We also interpreted “positioned below” in our Decision on Institution
`as follows:
`We do not feel constrained under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation to confine the claim language to the specific
`exemplary embodiment described in the Specification. Rather,
`under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “below,”
`the claim language requires only that at least a portion of the base
`legs are lower than the sitting portion of the chair such that when
`the chair is set upon a supporting surface such as the ground, the
`chair is supported by the base legs, as opposed to the sitting
`portion, such that the base legs can function as rockers, as called
`for the claim. As such, we interpret “positioned below” to call
`for at least a portion of the base legs to be lower than the lowest
`portion of the sitting portion of the chair, such that when the chair
`is in the second configuration, the base legs can function as
`rockers for the chair.
`Id. at 13.
`Sauder asserts that “[r]easonably construed, the ‘assembly’ must be
`below the seat, engaging the saddle when coupled, and have integral rocker
`legs wide enough apart to accept the saddle but still more or less within a
`vertical projection of the seat surface lateral edges to fit into the kneehole of
`a desk.” PO Resp. 19. The portions of the ’136 patent cited by Sauder as
`support for this definition seek to have us improperly import limitations
`from the preferred embodiment into the claim. For example, Sauder cites to
`the description provided in column 6, lines 35‒62 of the ’136 patent as
`support for its assertion that the claim must be read to encompass only an
`instances in which the rockers are formed integrally with the base legs. PO
`Resp. 19. The written description does not support Sauder’s proffered
`
`16
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`interpretation. Rather, the patent describes that “[t]he legs 180 may have
`various configurations” and that “the legs 180 are desirably configured as
`rockers” and that “the legs are preferably artfully incorporated into the chair
`frame 102 and extend to stops 182 at a very back of the frame lower portion
`106.” Ex. 1001, 6:3–40, 45‒45, 50‒52 (emphasis added). We see no reason
`presented in Sauder’s Patent Owner Response to deviate from the
`interpretations presented in our Decision on Institution and recited supra.
`6. “engage”
`Claim 1 calls for the combination to include a “stool base portion
`adapted to support said chair, and comprising a saddle adapted to releasably
`engage said chair.” Ex. 1001, 10:29‒31 (emphasis added). J Squared
`asserts that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “‘engaged’ should
`be construed simply to require contact.” Pet. 10. Sauder acknowledges that
`the term is used in several different ways within the ’136 patent to include
`simple contact, in the context of the rocker surfaces engaging the floor, and
`as a synonym for coupled, in the context of joining of the saddle (base) with
`the chair. Prelim. Resp. 17. Patent Owner asserts that “engaged,” when
`construed in the context of joining of the saddle (base) with the chair, means
`“locked together by virtue of the structure that is provided for achieving that
`purpose.” Id.
`We noted in the Decision on Institution that the ’136 patent uses the
`term “engage” in the context of the joining of the saddle and chair to refer to
`engagement via the claw and latch. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:4‒33, 5:19‒26,
`49‒54, 60‒62, 6:27‒29. In light of this description in the ’136 patent, we
`interpreted “engage” for purposes of institution to mean more than mere
`contact and to refer to the saddle and chair being “locked together.”
`Dec. 17‒18.
`
`17
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`Sauder did not proffer any other meaning for “engage,” as that term is
`used in claim 1, in its Response. PO Resp. 15 (characterizing the Board’s
`interpretation of “releasably engaged” as meaning “locked together” as
`“accurate”). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we adopt the
`meaning to “engage” provided in the Decision on Institution.
`Although Sauder does not challenge the Board’s interpretation of
`“engage,” it argues that the prior art components are not “releasably
`engaged” because the chair can be lifted straight up and off the base without
`unlocking any structure. PO Resp. 28 (arguing that one of ordinary skill in
`the art reading the ’136 patent would understand that the claw and latch
`“provide[] a lock that is operable in all directions”) (citing Ex. 2008, 36‒37,
`59‒60; Ex. 2039, 6:15). This argument raises the issue of to what extent the
`chair and base must be “locked together” in order to satisfy the claim
`language “releasably engage.”
`J Squared argues in its Reply that “Patentee’s claims do not recite
`‘locking in all directions.’” Pet. Reply 13. We agree with J Squared that the
`claim language “releasably engage” does not require locking together of the
`saddle and chair portion in all directions, e.g., front and back and side-to-
`side. Further, although the Specification provides a disclosure of a preferred
`embodiment in which the claw and latch cooperate with the saddle to
`prevent movement when the chair is tilted forward and back and the
`perimeter of the saddle and corresponding receptacle couple to prevent
`movement when the chair is moved side-to-side with respect to the base, we
`decline to limit the meaning of “releasably engage” to this particular
`preferred embodiment of the Specification, particularly in light of dependent
`claims that further narrow claim 1 and recite features of this particular
`preferred embodiment.
`
`18
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`7. “first configuration”
`Claim 1 calls for the combination to be “configurable in a first
`configuration with said chair being coupled to said saddle, and said sitting
`portion being positioned above said saddle.” Ex. 1001, 10:32‒34. The ’136
`patent describes chair 100 of the exemplary embodiment, when coupled to
`base 300, to provide a task chair or desk chair. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:38‒41,
`8:36‒38. The claims, however, are directed broadly to a “combination of a
`chair and a stool base portion” and are not limited to a desk chair or task
`chair. We interpreted “first configuration” in the Decision on Institution to
`encompass chairs other than desk or office chairs. Dec. 18.
`Sauder argues that the prior art “does not pretend to be a task chair in
`the assembled configuration; it is a high chair.” PO. Resp. 33 (arguing that
`the relative dimensions of the prior art preclude use with a desk). We find
`no requirement in the language of claim 1 that the chair be dimensioned to
`be used with a desk. For purposes of this final written decision, we adopt