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 IPR2015-00958
`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 IPR2015-00958
`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 IPR2015-00958:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Has Patent Owner established by a preponderance of the actual
`
`evidence that its constructions of the following terms are the broadest reasonable
`
`constructions:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`The term “chair”
`
`b.
`
`The term “stool base”
`
`c.
`
`The term “user”
`
`d.
`
`The term “lower portion”
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`The term “pedestal”
`
`The term “accessible”
`
`The term “alternatively”
`
`The term “saddle”
`
`2.
`
`The broader question as to whether Patent Owner’s narrower and fully
`
`supported constructions of claims are more reasonable and better serve the public
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`interest than the excessively broad constructions argued by Petitioner that ignore
`
`the actual teachings of the patent.
`
`
`
`3. Whether Petitioner and/or the Board correctly evaluated the scope and
`
`content of the prior art, particularly:
`
`
`
`a. Whether it would have been obvious to attach a rocker
`
`accessory to the base of Yu’s detached deck chair in view of the actual
`
`teachings of the prior art, conventional wisdom and the Board’s clear finding
`
`in its Decision, Page No. 17, ¶2, that there is no evidence “to show that it
`
`was desirable in the art to have a deck chair with a rocker function or that an
`
`artisan would have been led by design forces or other market forces to make
`
`such a modification.”
`
`
`
`b. Whether Petitioner has provided evidence on the fact question
`
`of whether the Kassai tray table latch mechanism is the equivalent of the
`
`latch disclosed in the ‘136 patent and whether it is obvious to replace the
`
`bolt plate of the Yu chair with the table latch mechanism of Kassai;
`
`
`
`c. Whether Yu effectively teaches a tilt and/or swivel function;
`
`and
`
`
`
`d. Whether the combination of Yu, Clark and Kassai teach the
`
`“coupling” and “releasably engaging” capabilities of the ‘136 invention as
`
`those terms have been construed by the Board in its Instituting Decisions.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`4. Whether it was necessary in this case for a PHOSITA to consult the
`
`file history to correctly construe the claims;
`
`
`
`5. Whether the declarants for Patent Owner are in substantial agreement
`
`as to claim scope, and whether any disparity between them is material, relevant
`
`and/or prejudicial to Patent Owner’s evidentiary presentation;
`
`
`
`6. Whether industry praise must come from a PHOSITA to be relevant
`
`particularly where the technology of the invention is readily understood by lay
`
`persons;
`
`
`
`7. Whether Patent Owner’s unrebutted trial evidence establishes a nexus
`
`between the claimed invention and the objective factors of praise; commercial
`
`success, and copying;
`
`
`
`8. Whether any or all of the objective factors must necessarily derive
`
`from an individual novel element as opposed to the claimed invention as a whole;
`
`
`
`9. Whether Patent Owner has established by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that;
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 11 are not obvious from the
`
`combined teachings of Yu and Clark;
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Claims 6, 7, 10 and 12-14 are not obvious from the combined
`
`teachings of Yu, Clark and Kassai.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`10. Whether Petitioner’s arguments for obviousness are based entirely on
`
`conclusions of counsel as opposed to evidence from a qualified witness
`
`establishing:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`the level of skill in the art;
`
`b.
`
`the scope and content of the analogous prior art;
`
`c.
`
`a viable rationale for the various combinations of prior art
`
`elements proposed by Petitioner; and
`
`
`
`d.
`
`the avoidance of hindsight.
`
`
`
`
`
`11. Has Patent Owner waived argument as to the interpretation and/or
`
`validity of any claim?
`
`
`
`12. Whether Patent Owner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`that the “corresponding structure” for the means plus function limitation of claim
`
`12 includes at least the claw and latch?
`
`
`
`13. Has Patent Owner provided sufficient proof of commercial success in
`
`a defined market?
`
`
`
`14. Such other and additional questions as Petitioner may raise in its
`
`argument as well as any additional issues on which the Board seeks clarification.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`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
`
`6
`
`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
`
`
`
`7
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
