Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Date: August 24, 2015
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Date: August 24, 2015
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner, J Squared, Inc. d/b/a University Loft Company
`(“Petitioner”), filed a Petition 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). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Sauder Manufacturing Company
`(“Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`The ’136 patent includes 14 claims. Claims 1 and 12 are independent.
`We have reviewed the Petition, the evidence cited therein, and the
`Preliminary Response. For the reasons set forth infra, we determine that
`Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with
`respect to challenged claims 1, 2, and 4‒14 of the ’136 patent on at least one
`ground of unpatentability. Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we
`institute an inter partes review of these claims.
`A. Related Matters
`Patent Owner has sued Petitioner 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.
`Petitioner also challenges 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 IPR2014-00958 (“the related petition”). The
`challenges to the claims presented in the related petition are based on
`different grounds but on some of the same prior art as presented in the
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`present Petition. We are issuing concurrent decisions in the present petition
`and the related petition.
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/596,623, filed January 14, 2015, now
`pending, 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.
`B. 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. “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.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a perspective view of a chair coupled to a
`companion stool base in a task chair configuration.
`Figure 18 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 18 depicts a perspective view of an uncoupled chair and
`companion stool base in a nested configuration.
`Figures 1 and 18 depict chair portion 100 and base portion 300 in
`coupled and uncoupled configurations, respectively. Ex. 1001, 4:21‒23.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`Chair portion 100 includes frame 102, which has upper portion 104 and
`lower portion 106. Id. at 4:24‒26. Legs 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.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`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
`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.
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1‒14 of the ’136 patent, of which claims
`1 and 12 are independent. Claim 1 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;
`in a first
`said combination
`is configurable
`configuration with said chair being coupled
`to said saddle, and said sitting portion being
`positioned above said saddle;
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`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
`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, 10:22‒46.
`
`D. The Prior Art
`Petitioner relies on the following U.S. Patents (Pet. 3‒4):
`Reference
`Patent Number
`Issue Date
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1002
`US Des. 139,241 October 24, 1944
`1003
`US 794,461
`July 11, 1905
`US 2,530,474
`November 21, 1950 1004
`US 2,689,598
`September 21, 1954 1005
`
`Wright
`Mackey
`Lutes
`Pollack
`(“Pollack
`II”)
`Pollack
`(“Pollack I”)
`February 3, 1948
`US 2,435,290
`Scharaga
`February 9, 1988
`US 4,723,813
`Kassai
`March 25, 1919
`US 1,298,053
`Kennedy
`Petitioner also relies on the following publication:
`“How to use your TreyTM chair,” Sauder Education (2006) (“Trey
`Instructions”) (Ex. 1010).
`
`US 2,644,506
`
`July 7, 1953
`
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`1009
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1‒14 of the ’136
`patent based on the following grounds (Pet. 3‒4).
`Ground
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`Claims Challenged
`1 Wright
`§ 102
`1, 2, 4‒8, 10, and 11
`2
`Mackey
`§ 102
`1‒5, 8, 10, and 11
`3
`Lutes
`§ 102
`1, 2, 4‒8, and 10‒14
`4
`Pollack II
`§ 102
`1, 2, and 6‒14
`Pollack II and
`§ 103
`Pollack I
`§ 102
`Scharaga
`5
`6 Wright and Kassai § 103
`7 Wright and
`§ 103
`Kennedy
`Trey Instructions
`
`
`
`1‒3, 6‒8, and 10‒14
`6, 7, and 12‒14
`6, 7, and 12‒14
`
`8
`
`§ 102
`
`1‒3 and 6‒14
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`The Board interprets the claims of an unexpired patent using the
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`which they appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo Speed
`Techs., LLC, _ F.3d _, 2015 WL 4097949, at *6‒*7 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2015)
`(inferring that “Congress [in enacting the AIA1] impliedly approved the
`existing rule of adopting the broadest reasonable construction” and holding
`that the PTO’s regulation is valid under the Chevron framework2).
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 11229, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011).
`2
`
`Under Chevron, the first question is “whether Congress has
`directly spoken to the precise question at issue.” Chevron,
`U.S.A., [Inc.] v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837,
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`Petitioner proposes 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. Patent Owner contests several of the
`Petitioner’s proposed constructions for these claim terms and additionally
`proposes its own construction for “combination of a chair and a stool base
`portion,” “first configuration,” and “accessible.” Prelim. Resp. 10‒17.
`Patent Owner filed its Preliminary Response on June 4, 2015.
`Subsequently, on June 9, 2015, the court in the corresponding district court
`litigation involving the ’136 patent issued a Markman Order construing
`“coupled,” “assembly,” and “rockers.” Patent Owner filed a copy of the
`Markman Order in related IPR2015-00958. IPR2015-00958, Ex. 2001. We
`considered the court’s claim construction of these terms in reaching our
`decision. For sake of completeness, we include a copy of the Markman
`Order as Exhibit 3001 to this Decision on Institution.3
`
`
`842, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984); accord Cooper
`Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`(quoting Hawkins v. United States, 469 F.3d 993, 1000 (Fed.
`Cir. 2006)). If the statute is ambiguous, the second question is
`“whether the agency’s interpretation is based on a permissible
`construction of the statutory language at issue.” Cooper, 536
`F.3d at 1338 (quoting Hawkins, 469 F.3d at 1000).
`Cuozzo, 2015 WL 4097949 at *7.
`3 This Markman Order was submitted by the Patent Owner in the closely
`related case addressing some of the same claim terms of the same patent.
`Due to these circumstances, we include a copy of the Markman Order sua
`sponte in the record of the present proceeding.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`We construe only those claim limitations necessary to reach our
`decision on institution. “[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent
`necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem.
`Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`1. “assembly”
`Claim 1 calls for the combination to comprise “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 (emphasis
`added). Petitioner proposes that “the assembly forming the base legs should
`be construed simply as structure including base legs” and that it “may be a
`separate component, e.g., an attachment attached only in the second
`configuration.” Pet. 11‒12 (“it is reasonable under the [broadest reasonable
`interpretation (BRI)] standard to construe the ‘when’ clause as modifying
`the ‘positioned’ clause and the ‘forming’ clause”). Patent Owner does not
`present arguments contesting Petitioner’s construction.
`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.
`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
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`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”4 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.
`As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
`language, we interpret “assembly” to include 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.
`We decline to adopt, however, the Petitioner’s construction that
`encompasses base legs that are positioned below the sitting portion only
`when the combination is in the second configuration. Rather, we read the
`
`4 “Assembly” is defined as “the fitting together of manufactured parts into a
`complete machine, structure, or unit of a machine” or “a collection of parts
`so assembled.” Merriam-Webster.com (definition 6), http://www.merriam-
`webster.com/dictionary/assembly, last accessed on August 24, 2015.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`clause “when said combination is in said second configuration” to modify
`the immediately preceding clause, which refers to the base legs being
`“structured so as to function as rockers for said chair.” As such, we
`understand the claim language to call for the base legs to function as rockers
`when the combination is in the second configuration. We do not understand
`the claim language to call for the assembly to be positioned below the sitting
`portion and forming a pair of base legs only when the combination is in the
`second configuration.
`
`2. “positioned below”
`Claim 1 calls for the assembly to be “positioned below said sitting
`portion.” Ex. 1001, 10:42‒43 (emphasis added). Petitioner asserts that
`“positioned below” does not require the base leg structure to be “entirely
`below (lower than) the sitting portion.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1015, 3
`(Webster’s Dictionary definition of “below” as “in or to a lower place
`than”)); id. at 13 (proposing that “positioned below” should be construed to
`mean positioned at least partially below). Petitioner notes that the forward
`most ends of base legs 180 of the ’136 patent are shown as being above
`(higher than) the lowest points of the sitting portion. Id. at 12 (citing Ex.
`1001, Fig. 5).
`Patent Owner proposes that “positioned below” is used to describe the
`relationship between the base legs and the sitting portion and requires that
`the base legs are “vertically under the [sitting portion], not merely lower in
`relative altitude as Petitioner would suggest.” Prelim. Resp. 15. The debate
`centers on whether base legs that are lower than, but not vertically under, the
`sitting portion (e.g., base legs that are disposed along the sides of the sitting
`portion) are “positioned below” the sitting portion as that term is used in
`claim 1.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`The ’136 patent does not use the term “positioned below” in
`describing the relative position of the base legs to the sitting portion of the
`chair. 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 are shown in the Figures as being positioned
`vertically under the sitting portion. Ex. 1001, Figs. 2 & 3. 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.
`Patent Owner argues that we should adopt the Examiner’s
`interpretation of a similar claim limitation in prosecution claim 27 of child
`Application No. 14/057,781 (’781 application), which is a continuation of
`the ’136 patent. Prelim. Resp. 15‒16 (citing Ex. 2006). The claim at issue
`called for “said rocker members being located beneath the plane of said
`undersurface [of a seat portion of a floor rocker chair].” Ex. 3003
`(Amendment dated 11/20/2014 at 3‒4) (emphasis added). The Examiner, in
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`the stated reasons for allowance of prosecution claim 27, interpreted
`“beneath” to mean “vertically underneath” the seat undersurface. Ex. 2006,
`2. We give little weight to the Examiner’s reasons for allowance in the child
`’781 application because it is based on interpretation of claim language that
`differs from the claim language before us in this proceeding. At least one
`common, ordinary meaning of beneath includes “directly under.” 5 The
`Examiner may have considered this ordinary meaning to be the broadest
`reasonable interpretation of the term “beneath” when interpreted in light of
`the child ’781 application. The Examiner, however, did not interpret
`“positioned below,” which is not ordinarily defined to mean “directly
`under.”
`
`3. “structured so as to function as rockers”
`Claim 1 calls for the combination to comprise “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 (emphasis
`added). Petitioner asserts that because the Patent Owner chose to recite the
`base leg structure by its function, the claim “covers all devices that are
`capable of performing the recited function.” Pet. 13 (asserting that “the
`function of rockers is to enable rocking”). Petitioner posits that “[t]his
`function can be performed by means of continuously or intermittently or
`partially curved rails, pivoting flat rails, bipod chair leg structures, or by any
`other means.” Id. at 14. Petitioner provides examples of chair leg structures
`encompassed by this interpretation. Id. at 14, 53‒54 (depicting illustrations
`
`5 “Beneath” means “in or to a lower position than,” “directly under,” or “at
`the foot of.” Ex. 1015, 79.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`of a sled base chair, a four-legged chair with pivotal rear legs, and cantilever
`chairs).
`Patent Owner asserts that the phrase “should be construed in structural
`terms and to encompass only legs contoured to function as rockers.” Prelim.
`Resp. 16. The court in the corresponding district court litigation interpreted
`“base legs structured so as to function as rockers” to mean “rockers and not
`traditional legs” and defined “rockers” as “a curved piece of wood that
`makes a chair rock; distinguishable from a chair that might ‘rock no matter
`how slightly’ or ‘tilt.’” Ex. 3001, 3‒4.
`We disagree with Petitioner’s overly broad reading of “rockers” as
`encompassing structures that are not in the form of rockers and that enable
`only a tilting motion about a single pivot point. For example, the sled base
`chair, shown as “Chair 1” in the Petition, has flat-bottom rails for legs. Pet.
`54. The legs have four feet (annotated as element g) projecting downwardly
`from the flat rails. Id. Petitioner argues that these feet “provide pivot points
`and thus enable rocking.” Id.
`The ’136 patent differentiates between legs that function as rockers,
`such as the arcuate legs 180 shown in the figures of the ’136 patent, and legs
`that provide a single pivot point. For example, the ’136 patent
`acknowledges that users may desire to tilt the chair backward when it is used
`on the floor, and that providing legs that function as rockers will allow the
`user to tilt the chair backward without unsafely tilting the chair completely
`backward. Ex. 1001, 6:36‒57. If we were to construe the structure that
`renders chair legs capable of functioning as rockers to encompass any chair
`legs that have a single pivot point, then the interpretation would encompass,
`for example, traditional peg chair legs, which allow a user to tilt back and
`balance the chair on only the two rear legs. Such a broad interpretation of
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`base leg structures that function as rockers to encompass the sled leg chairs
`shown in the Petition or traditional peg leg chairs is inconsistent with the
`Specification of the ’136 patent. As such, we interpret “structured so as to
`function as rockers” to mean curved runners that allow a chair to rock;
`distinguishable from a chair that pivots or tilts about a pivot point.
`4. “coupled”
`Claim 1 calls for the combination to be “configurable in a first
`configuration with said chair being coupled to said saddle.” Ex. 1001,
`10:32‒33 (emphasis added). Petitioner asserts that under the broadest
`reasonable interpretation, “‘coupled’ should be construed to mean connected
`but not necessarily locked together.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:63‒8:5,
`which Petitioner asserts describe peg-in-hole couplings). Patent Owner
`argues that Petitioner’s interpretation is unreasonably broad because it is
`inconsistent with every description provided in the ’136 patent of joining of
`the chair and base. Prelim. Resp. 11‒12 (noting that the chair and base are
`described as joined by the front claw and rear latch so that when they are
`fully and securely joined together, they function as a unit and resist
`movement or separation relative to one another in all directions). The court
`in the corresponding district court litigation defined “coupled” as “securely
`joined.” Ex. 3001 at 2‒3 (noting that the Specification references a “secure
`engagement” and “‘coupling’ to become a single unit” such that “once
`coupled, the unit resists separation and movement”).
`The ’136 patent uses the term “couples” in the context of describing
`both the joining of the frame lower portion receptacle and the saddle
`perimeter edge, and the joining of the chair and base through the claw and
`latch. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:30‒34, 5:62‒65, 7:5‒8, 7:59‒8:5, 8:38‒40,
`8:48‒53. We note, however, that in the context of the claims, dependent
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`claim 3, which further defines the joining of the frame lower portion
`receptacle and the saddle perimeter edge, uses the term “couples,” whereas
`the claims appear to use the term “releasably engage” when referring to the
`joining of the chair and base through the claw and latch. As such, the
`broadest reasonable interpretation of “coupled” encompasses joining via a
`receptacle and insert, and is not limited to secure joining by a latch
`arrangement. Further construction of this term is not necessary for this
`decision.
`
`5. “engaged”
`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). Petitioner
`asserts that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “‘engaged’ should
`be construed simply to require contact.” Pet. 10. Patent Owner
`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.
`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. Further, if we were to
`construe “engage” broadly to encompass mere contact, as proposed by
`Petitioner, such a construction would render the claim term “releasably”
`nonsensical. As such, in the context of the claim language, which refers to
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`the releasable engagement of the saddle and chair, we interpret “engage” to
`mean locked together.
`
`
`
`6. “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, 10:29‒31. Patent
`Owner asserts that this first configuration is “the ‘desk chair’ configuration”
`and argues that “the chair is not an infant high chair, but an ‘office chair.’”
`Prelim. Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:37‒43). 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. Under the broadest
`reasonable interpretation of “first configuration,” the claims encompass
`chairs other than desk or office chairs.
`7. “accessible”
`Claim 1 calls for “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.” Ex.
`1001, 10:36‒41. Patent Owner asserts that claim language calls for the
`saddle to be “accessible” to the user when the user is seated in the floor
`rocker. Prelim. Resp. 13 (arguing that the saddle must be “at an appropriate
`height so that the stool top can be effectively used as a writing table”). We
`decline to adopt Patent Owner’s interpretation because it is not
`commensurate with the claim language.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`First, the claim language provides for an alternative use of the saddle
`in the second configuration, in which the saddle is accessible to a second
`user to use as a sitting surface. Second, the claim language does not require
`the saddle to be used as a writing table, as posited by Patent Owner. Rather,
`the claim language simply calls for the saddle to be accessible to the first
`user as a “work surface.” Third, the claim language does not require the first
`user to use the floor rocker and the saddle simultaneously. The claim
`language is broad enough, as written, to encompass the first user using the
`floor rocker and the work surface of the saddle at different times. For these
`reasons, we do not construe claim 1 to require a saddle that is at an
`appropriate height so that the stool top can be used as a writing table when
`the first user is seated in the floor rocker.
`8. “perimeter edge . . . with a rotationally asymmetric geometry”
`Claim 3 calls for the saddle to have a perimeter edge “defining the top
`surface with a rotational asymmetric geometry.” Petitioner asks the Board
`to take into account the construction proposed by Patent Owner in the
`corresponding district court litigation, in which Patent Owner proposes that
`this limitation means a saddle with “any physical structure in or closely
`associated with the perimeter edge of the saddle that allows the saddle to be
`coupled to the chair in only one rotational orientation.” Pet. 15 (quoting Ex.
`1016, 3 (emphasis added)). Patent Owner does not contest this construction.
`The ’136 patent describes that front edge 314 and back edge 316 of
`saddle 310 define a rotationally asymmetric geometry that provides a keyed
`coupling of chair portion 100 with base portion 300, and “most preferably a
`unitary keyed coupling with one alignment.” Ex. 1001, 7:56‒62. In an
`exemplary embodiment, saddle 310 has a generally trapezoidal geometry
`that cooperates with receptacle 190 such that these parts may be coupled in
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00774
`
`Patent 8,585,136 B2
`only one orientation as compared with other geometries, such as a square or
`a triangle, which allow for coupling in more than one orientation. Ex. 1001,
`7:63‒8:5. The ’136 patent describes that “geometries other than trapezoidal
`may be chosen.” Id. at 8:8‒9.
`We understand “rotationally asymmetric geometry” when interpreted
`in light of the Specification to call for the perimeter edge of the saddle to
`define a shape that couples with the receptacle in only one orientation.
`9. “latch moving between closed and open positions”
`Claim 6 calls for the lower portion of the chair to comprise “a latch
`moving between closed and open positions.” Ex. 1001, 11:8‒10. Petitioner
`asserts that this claim language “simply requires a latch” and that “[t]he
`function of moving has no patentable weight.” Pet. 15. Petitioner provides
`a definition of latch as “a device that holds something in place by entering a
`notch or cavity.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1015, 5). “Patent Owner submits that the
`term should be construed as a ‘manually operable device having an open
`position that allows separation of two components and a closed position that
`locks the components together.’” Prelim. Resp. 14.
`Rather than give no patentable weight to the functional recitation of
`“moving between closed and open positions,” as proposed by Petitioner, we
`interpret this functional language to call for a latch structure capable of
`moving between closed and open positions. For example, a structure such as
`a pin that can move between an extended position, in which it engages a
`cavity and locks componen
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
