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 B2
`
`_________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before LINDA E. HORNER, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and
`JAMES A. WORTH
`
`PATENT OWNER’S TRIAL RESPONSE
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ................................................... 1
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ................................................. .. 1
`
`THE ISSUES .......................................................................................... 3
`THE ISSUES ........................................................................................ .. 3
`
`I.
`I.
`
`II.
`II.
`
`III. APPLICABLE LAW .............................................................................. 3
`III.
`APPLICABLE LAW ............................................................................ .. 3
`
`A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION.............................................................. 3
`A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................ .. 3
`
`B. INVALIDITY ................................................................................... 5
`B. INVALIDITY ................................................................................. .. 5
`
`IV. THE EVIDENCE IN GENERAL........................................................... 9
`IV.
`THE EVIDENCE IN GENERAL ......................................................... .. 9
`
`V.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................... 14
`VI.
`CLA11V[ CONSTRUCTION ................................................................. .. 14
`
`A. CLAIM 1 ........................................................................................... 14
`A. CLAIM 1 ......................................................................................... .. 14
`
`B. CLAIM 2 ........................................................................................... 20
`B. CLAIM 2 ......................................................................................... .. 20
`
`C. CLAIM 4 ........................................................................................... 20
`C. CLAIM 4 ......................................................................................... .. 20
`
`D. CLAIM 6 ........................................................................................... 20
`D. CLAIM 6 ......................................................................................... .. 20
`
`E. CLAIM 9 ........................................................................................... 21
`E. CLAHVI 9 ......................................................................................... .. 21
`
`F. CLAIM 12 ......................................................................................... 21
`F. CLAHVI 12 ....................................................................................... .. 21
`
`INVALIDITY ......................................................................................... 23
`VII.
`VII.
`INVALIDITY ....................................................................................... .. 23
`A. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, AND
`
`A. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, AND
` 11 ARE NOT OBVIOUS FROM THE COMBINATION OF
`11 ARE NOT OBVIOUS FROM THE COMBINATION OF
`
` YU AND CLARK ........................................................................... 24
`YU AND CLARK ......................................................................... .. 24
`
`B. CLAIMS 6-10 AND 12-14 ARE NOT OBVIOUS FROM YU,
`B. CLAIMS 6-10 AND 12-14 ARE NOT OBVIOUS FROM YU,
`
` CLARK AND KASSAI .................................................................... 28
`CLARK AND KASSAI .................................................................. .. 28
`
`C. OBJECTIVE FACTORS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ..................... 30
`C. OBJECTIVE FACTORS OF NON—OBVIOUSNESS ................... .. 30
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 35
`IX.
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... .. 35
`
`THE INVENTION.................................................................................. 10
`THE INVENTION ................................................................................ .. 10
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Cable & Wireless Internet Servs., Inc.,
`344 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...................................................................... 8, 35
`
`Akzo N.V. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`808 F.2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ........................................................................ 6, 7
`
`In re Clay,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .............................................................................. 7
`
`Cont’l Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ............................................................................ 8
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Ext Rel, Capsule Patent
`Litigation,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 8
`
`In re Donahue,
`766 F.2d 531 (Fed.Cir.1985) ................................................................................ 6
`
`In re Donaldson Co.,
`16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 3
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharm., Inc.,
`No. IP 99-38-CHK, 2001 WL 1397304 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 29, 2001) ...................... 9
`
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d. 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ........................................................................... 26
`
`In re GPAC.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .......................................................................... 4, 9
`
`Graham v. Deere,
`383 U.S. 1 (1965) .................................................................................................. 7
`
`Honeywell Int’l v. ITT Industries, Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...................................................................... 5, 17
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Cellpro, Inc.,
`152 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 5
`
`Kalaman v. Kimberly Clark Corp.,
`713 F.2d 760 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......................................................................... 5, 6
`
`In re Klein,
`647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 6
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .......................................................................................... 6, 7
`
`Merck v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`347 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 29
`
`Mitz Dietz & Watson, Inc.,
`679 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Pressure Prods. Med.
`Supplies, Inc. v. Greatbatch Ltd., 599 F.3d 1308, 1319 (2010) ........................... 9
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm v. Mylan Labs, Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Panduit Corp., v. Dennison Mfg.,
`774 F.2d 1082 (Fed. Civ. 1985) .................................................................... 19, 34
`
`Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
`810 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................................................ 7
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 4
`
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 4
`
`Serrano v. Telular Corp.,
`111 F.3d 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 4
`
`SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Labs. Corp.,
`859 F.2d 878 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .............................................................................. 4
`
`Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp.,
`845 F.2d 981 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ........................................................................ 9, 34
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Stratoflex Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,
`713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich.,
`192 F.2d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 7
`
`Tec Air Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan,
`192 F.3d. 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ......................................................................... 26
`
`Tyler Refrigeration v. Kysor Inds. Corp.,
`777 F.2d 687 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .............................................................................. 5
`
`In re Zletz,
`893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .............................................................................. 4
`
`Statutes
`
`35 USC §102 .................................................................................................. 5, 19, 29
`
`35 USC §103 ........................................................................................................ 6, 29
`
`35 USC §112 ............................................................................................................ 29
`
`35 USC §112 ¶6 ................................................................................................... 3, 21
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Exhibit Number
`2011
`2012
`2013
`2014
`2015
`2016
`2017
`2018
`2019
`2020
`2021
`2022
`2023
`2024
`2025
`2026
`2027
`2028
`2029
`2030
`2031
`2032
`2033
`2034
`2035
`2036
`2037
`2038
`2039
`2040
`2041
`2042
`2043
`2044
`2045
`2046
`
`Description
`Trey® Multi-Function Task Chair, © 2006
`Trey® Multi-Function Task Chair, © 2013
`PC Gamer Magazine, January 2008
`Wall Street Journal, September 15, 2007
`Plasticnews.com, April 9, 2007
`GIZMODO, May 8, 2007
`PC World
`Treehugger.com, August 21, 2007
`Wood Chairs
`About Sauder
`Merriam Webster Stool Definition
`Google Image Search for Stool Seat
`Trey Chair With Claw Video
`Trey Chair Without Claw Video
`Google Image Search for Pedestal Chair
`Google Image Search for Pedestal Sink
`Google Image Search for Pedestal Table
`Merriam Webster Define Definition
`Merriam Webster Arcuate Definition
`Standardization News, March 2003
`About U Loft
`U Loft Blog Feb. 16
`U Loft Blog Dep. 29
`U Loft Blog August 17
`Trey and Wave Comparison
`Wave Chair
`Vector Chair
` GSA Request for Quote
`Declaration of David Harting
`Resume of David Harting
`Furniture Project Nov 3 2003
`Davis Deposition
`Anderson Deposition
`Markman Order
`Jameson Sketches
`Declaration of Anthony Warncke
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Exhibit Number
`2047
`2048
`2049
`2050
`2051
`2052
`2053
`2054
`2055
`2056
`2057
`2058
`2059
`2060
`2061
`2062
`2063
`2064
`2065
`2066
`2067
`2068
`2069
`2070
`2071
`2072
`
`Description
`
`PlyLok family of Chairs
`Sea of Sameness
`Design Brief
`BIFMA X5.1-2002
`Test Plan (Trey), Sauder Internal
`Comparative Photographs - Mackey - Trey
`Video - Trey Claw Removed
`Video - Trey Claw Intact
`Video - Mackey engage-disengage
`Video - Trey engage-disengage
`Exhibit 39 from Anderson Dep.
`Exhibit 53 from Anderson Dep.
`Exhibit 60 from Anderson Dep.
`Exhibit 61 from Anderson Dep.
`Exhibit 55 from Anderson Dep.
`Exhibit 48 from Anderson Dep.
`Exhibit 54 from Anderson Dep.
`Exhibit 56 from Anderson Dep.
`Exhibit 3 from Davis Dep.
`Exhibit 7 from Davis Dep.
`Exhibit 8 from Davis Dep.
`Exhibit 13 from Davis Dep.
`Exhibit 14 from Davis Dep.
`Sauder Education Page
`Trey Chair Video
`Declaration of Philip Bontrager
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
`
`This case is about an invention that redefined the use of desk chairs by
`
`students and other institutional users. Inventors solved a complex problem of space
`
`utilization and lifestyle changes without sacrificing durability, value, or aesthetic
`
`appeal by inventing a desk or task chair1 that can be readily reconfigured for
`
`dramatically different modes of use. In the first 12 months after its commercial
`
`introduction, the invention resulted in the sale of over 9,900 chairs generating
`
`$2,000,000 in revenue for Patent Owner, Sauder Manufacturing Company. Sales to
`
`date have exceeded $35,000,000.
`
`U.S. Patent 8,585,136 (Ex. 1001, (hereinafter the “‘136 Patent”)) describes a
`
`two-unit “combination” consisting of a chair and a stool base that can be releasably
`
`engaged and “coupled” to one another. When engaged, the combination works as a
`
`desk chair. When disengaged, the combination works as a floor rocker and a
`
`companion table accessible to a user seated in the rocker or a stool for a second
`
`user. The stool base is topped with a four-sided “saddle” that is key to the multiple
`
`use modes. First, the saddle is the part of the base to which the floor rocker
`
`couples, and second it is the level surface on which a user can write, work or sit.
`
`The invention was recognized, and quickly gained market share, in
`
`developed commercial markets including colleges, universities and government
`
`
`1 Patent Owner uses “desk chair” and “task chair” synonymously.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`agencies. The invention was praised in the media. (Exhibit 2072, pp. 8-13.) It was
`
`a game changer.
`
`
`
`Colleges, universities, and the government agencies are not the only ones to
`
`recognize the innovative qualities and commercial appeal of the new chair
`
`introduced by Patent Owner in 2006. Petitioner J Squared, Inc. recognized it too
`
`and, in 2008, instituted a 3-year program with its Asian affiliate to produce a
`
`virtual copy of the patented chair. (Ex. 2035 (Trey and Wave Comparison).)
`
`Petitioner’s own advertising shows the dramatic similarity with the invention chair
`
`and touts it as a marvel of innovation. It is ironic that Petitioner now attacks the
`
`patented invention as an obvious variation on prior art infant seats and folding deck
`
`or lawn chairs.
`
`
`
`To support its attack, Petitioner glosses over the specific and well-defined
`
`vocabulary of the patent claims and argues both anticipation and obviousness on
`
`the basis of prior art that is not only categorically and specifically different from
`
`the invention, but was clearly handpicked and assembled with the benefit of
`
`hindsight. Petitioner also gives no credit whatsoever to the realities of the inventive
`
`process; e.g., trial and error, testing and failures. He supposes that inventions are
`
`made simply by leafing through the prior art and using “common sense” to create
`
`new combinations that bear little resemblance to the devices actually shown in the
`
`prior art.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Because Petitioner cannot meet its burden of proving obviousness, and
`
`because Patent Owner provides the Board with substantial evidence of objective
`
`factors favoring non-obviousness, all claims at issue in this and the companion IPR
`
`Case IPR2015-00774, must be confirmed.
`
`II. THE ISSUES
`
`1.
`
`Is the subject matter of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 11 obvious from the
`
`combination of Yu (6,554,353) and Clark (4,285,543); and
`
`2.
`
`Is the subject matter of claims 6, 7, 10, and 12-14 obvious from the
`
`combined teachings of Yu, Clark, and Kassai (4,723,813)?
`
`Patent Owner’s answers to both of these questions “No.”
`
`III. APPLICABLE LAW
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an IPR, claims are to be construed according to the “broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation” standard. 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b). The broadest
`
`reasonable
`
`interpretation of “means plus function” language must be consistent with the
`
`statutory mandate of 35 USC §112 ¶6 and include all of the components that carry
`
`out the recited function and their equivalents; In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation must be consistent with the entire
`
`patent disclosure as it would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`art (PHOSITA). Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1309
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999)(“While a judge is well-equipped to interpret the legal aspects of
`
`the document, he or she must also interpret the technical aspects of the document,
`
`and indeed its overall meaning, from the vantage point of one skilled in the art”);
`
`SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Labs. Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 882 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1988); and Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2111. A
`
`PHOSITA is a hypothetical person who is presumed to know the relevant prior art.
`
`In re GPAC., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In some cases, the ordinary
`
`meaning of claim language may be readily apparent even to lay people, and claim
`
`construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely
`
`accepted meaning of commonly understood words. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`
`F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`
`
`On the other hand, a patentee may be his own lexicographer and choose his
`
`own terms to describe his invention. Where claim terms are explicitly defined in
`
`the specification, the broadest reasonable construction of the claims must be
`
`consistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
`
`(“when the applicant states the meaning that the claim terms are intended to have,
`
`the claims are examined with that meaning . . .”); Serrano v. Telular Corp., 111
`
`F.3d 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1997), citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronics, Inc., 90 F.3d
`
`1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`Even though a claim may use a generic term for a component, if the
`
`specification makes it clear that the “invention” is more limited, the claim will be
`
`construed narrowly to comport with the actual invention. Honeywell Int’l v. ITT
`
`Industries, Inc., 452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(construing “fuel system
`
`component” to mean “a fuel filter”).
`
`
`
`It is not reasonable to read a claim in such a way as to exclude the only
`
`disclosed embodiment. Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Cellpro, Inc., 152 F.3d 1342 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1998)
`
`B.
`
`Invalidity
`
`i.
`
`35 USC §102
`
`To anticipate a claim under 35 USC §102, a single reference must have
`
`“identity” with the claimed invention and must respond to all of the terms of the
`
`claim. Tyler Refrigeration v. Kysor Inds. Corp., 777 F.2d 687 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1985)(showing identity required prior art to disclose a refrigerated air curtain,
`
`which was not a claim element, but was inherent to claim); Kalaman v. Kimberly
`
`Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760 (Fed. Cir. 1983)(no identity because prior art used
`
`different means to prevent leakage). To establish identity, Petitioner “must show
`
`that each element of the claim in issue is found, either expressly described or under
`
`principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference, or that the claimed invention
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`was previously known or embodied in a single prior art device or practice.” Id. at
`
`771.
`
`In addition to identity of invention, anticipation requires that the prior art
`
`reference must be enabling, thus “placing the allegedly disclosed matter in the
`
`possession of the public.” Akzo N.V. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 808 F.2d 1471,
`
`1479 (Fed. Cir. 1986)(no enablement where prior art taught use of sulfuric acid and
`
`claimed element required 98% sulfuric acid for manufacture); see also In re
`
`Donahue, 766 F.2d 531, 533 (Fed.Cir.1985) (citing Application of Borst, 345 F.2d
`
`851, 855 (C.C.P.A.1965)).
`
`ii.
`
`35 USC §103
`
`Rendering a claim obvious under 35 USC §103 requires an “articulated
`
`reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
`
`obviousness.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In
`
`re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). When considering obviousness of a
`
`combination of known elements, the operative question is thus “whether the
`
`improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to
`
`their established functions.” Id. at 417.
`
`A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under §
`
`103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343,
`
`1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(prior art disclosing dividers to keep material separate is not
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`analogous to dividers used to facilitate mixing material). Prior art is considered to
`
`be analogous if it “logically would have commended itself to an inventor's
`
`attention in considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1992)(prior art disclosing gel for recovering oil from rock formations not
`
`analogous to gel used to prevent loss of stored product to tank dead volume). Thus,
`
`the purposes of both the invention and the prior art are important in determining
`
`whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem the invention attempts
`
`to solve.
`
`Obviousness of a claimed invention is not proven by strategically selecting
`
`elements of prior art references using knowledge of the claimed invention as a
`
`guide, as this is considered impermissible hindsight. Graham v. Deere, 383 U.S. 1
`
`(1965); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007); Panduit Corp. v. Dennison
`
`Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1987); and Akzo NV v. USITC, 808 F.2d 1471
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1986)(expert witness failed to should how prior art could be modified
`
`without use of hindsight).
`
`
`
`It is not “obvious” to modify a prior art device in such a way as to render it
`
`unsuitable for its intended purpose. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1984)(turning strainer upside down not obvious because strainer relied on gravity
`
`to function); and Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich., 192 F.2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999).
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`Evidence of secondary considerations of non-obviousness, when present,
`
`must always be considered on the way to a determination on obviousness. In re
`
`Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Ext Rel, Capsule Patent Litigation, 676 F.3d
`
`1063, 1075-76 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Stratoflex Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530,
`
`1538-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Evidence of secondary considerations “may often be the
`
`most probative and cogent evidence of non-obviousness in the record.” Ortho-
`
`McNeil Pharm v. Mylan Labs, Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2008); and
`
`Intri-plex Tech., Inc. et al. v. Saint-Gobain Perf. Plastics Rencol Ltd., IPR2014-
`
`00309, Paper 83 (PTAB March 23, 2015)(commercial sales establish non-
`
`obviousness).
`
`
`
`Objective factors such as commercial success of the invention and/or
`
`copying of the invention by others, rather than the prior art, are strong indicators of
`
`non-obviousness and will effectively rebut even a prima facie case of obviousness.
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Cable & Wireless Internet Servs., Inc., 344 F.3d 1186, 1196
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2003) (finding that evidence of a competitor responding to the
`
`introduction of the patent owner’s product with an infringing product indicated
`
`copying, which supported nonobviousness); Cont’l Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto
`
`Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The significance of a new structure is
`
`often better measured in the marketplace than in the courtroom.”); Apple Inc. v.
`
`Int'l Trade Comm’n, 725 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (vacating an ITC
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`decision for failing to credit the patent owner’s evidence of substantial sales); Mitz
`
`Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Pressure
`
`Prods. Med. Supplies, Inc. v. Greatbatch Ltd., 599 F.3d 1308, 1319 (2010)); and
`
`Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`There must be a causal relationship, a nexus, between the evidence of
`
`objective factors and the claimed invention. Tandus Flooring, Inc. v. Interface,
`
`Inc., IPR2013-00527, Paper 48(PTAB Fed 12, 2015). The stronger the nexus, the
`
`greater the weight accorded to the objective evidence of nonobviousness. Id. A
`
`prima facie nexus is established when Patent Owner shows both commercial
`
`success and a disclosure of and claims to the successful product in the patent. In re
`
`GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573 at 1580; and Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharm.,
`
`Inc., No. IP 99-38-CHK, 2001 WL 1397304, at *12 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 29,
`
`2001)(Nexus found where advertising and claims were directed to same product
`
`feature).
`
`IV. THE EVIDENCE IN GENERAL
`
`
`
`Patent Owner submits herewith the declaration testimony of Phillip E.
`
`Bontrager, President and CEO of the Sauder Manufacturing Company, Anthony J.
`
`Warncke, Patent Owner’s Director of Product Development and co-inventor in the
`
`‘136 patent, and David Harting, founding member of ELEVEN, LLC, a Boston-
`
`based product development consulting firm. (Ex. 2072 (Declaration of Phillip
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Bontrager (hereinafter “Bontrager”)); Ex. 2046 (Declaration of Anthony Warncke
`
`(hereinafter “Warncke”)); and Ex. 2039 (Declaration of David Harting (hereinafter
`
`“Harting”)).) All three are familiar with the relevant art and are qualified to
`
`provide evidence as to what a person of ordinary skill in the seating art would
`
`understand from the patent and what the PHOSITA would have seen as obvious at
`
`the time the subject invention was made. (Bontrager, pp. 2-4; Warncke, p. 2:2-25,
`
`and Harting, p. 1:4.)
`
`In addition, Patent Owner submits herewith the deposition transcripts of
`
`former Petitioner employees Justin Davis (Ex. 2042), and Adam Anderson (Ex.
`
`2043), taken during discovery in the pending civil action: Sauder Manufacturing
`
`Company v. J Squared, Inc., d/b/a University Loft Company, in the United States
`
`District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
`
`Patent Owner further relies on various intrinsic evidence including the ‘136
`
`Patent submitted as Ex. 1001, and its file history submitted as Ex. 1008, and
`
`various extrinsic evidence including all prior art of record. (Ex. 1002 (Yu); Ex.
`
`1003 (Mackey); Ex. 1004 (Clark) and Ex. 1005 (Kassai).)
`
`V.
`
`THE INVENTION
`
`The Bontrager Declaration on pages 14-19, and the Warncke Declaration at
`
`lines 27-450, provide a detailed story of the invention, its development history and
`
`its features. Bontrager correlates it in detail to the TREY® chair now made and
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`sold by his company on pages 7-13. To summarize Mr. Bontrager, the invention
`
`lies in a chair that can be converted from a “task” chair ready for serious desk
`
`work, to a floor rocker with companion table ready for play. It is the result of a
`
`development project begun in 2003 by Patent Owner, Sauder Manufacturing
`
`Company with a Boston-based design studio named ELEVEN LLC. (Harting p.
`
`3:7; and Warncke p. 7:130-142.) The goal was to develop new and different
`
`college and university residence hall furniture, including in particular, a new task
`
`chair that would hopefully reverse a decline in sales of Sauder’s existing dorm
`
`room task chairs. (Bontrager, p. 14; Harting, p. 3:8; and Warncke, p. 4:54-64.)
`
`Moreover, the chair had to meet a number of design objectives in addition to
`
`convertibility. (Bontrager, p. 17; Harting, 4:9-5:10; Warncke, pp. 8:153-13:288;
`
`Ex. 2049; and Ex. 2041 (Furniture Project Nov 3 2003).)
`
`
`
`The invention chair consists of two units: a floor rocker and a stool base.
`
`(Bontrager, 20-26; ‘136 Patent, Patent Title, Abstract and Brief Summary of the
`
`Invention; and Warncke, FIG. 6., pp. 7:143-8:152, 13:290-291, and 14:309-313.))
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ‘136 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Trey® Chair
`
`The stool base includes a “saddle,” an unconventional part that is narrow
`
`enough in one dimension to fit between the floor rocker legs, but wide enough
`
`dimension to function as a work surface or seat. (Bontrager pp. 27- 28; Warncke
`
`pp. 16:358-17:381; and Harting 7:E.) The saddle 310 is configured to cooperate
`
`with an assembly 106 positioned below the seat to provide a secure, fool-proof,
`
`and user friendly connection. (Bontrager pp. 29-30.) These components provide for
`
`releasable engagement and manual operation, and include a hook-like claw 142, a
`
`spring latch 160, and a receptacle 190 that embraces the sides of the saddle 310.
`
`Together, these elements allow the chair and base to “releasably engage” and
`
`“couple” only one way. (Bontrager, pp. 31-37; and Warncke, pp. 10:201 and
`
`18:383-390.)
`
`
`
`The floor rocker and backrest are joined by a frame, part of which forms the
`
`assembly 106 under the seat to provide the receptacle and the integral rocker legs.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`The rocker legs are rails that are attached to both front and rear anchor points on
`
`the seat bottom. (‘136 Patent, 4:24-65 and 10:63–11:3; and Warncke, p. 14:315-
`
`316.)
`
`
`
`The preferred stool base is a single post “pedestal” having radial “star” legs
`
`at the bottom. The post that provides a swivel function is a purchased item found in
`
`almost all swivel/tilt desk chairs. (Bontrager, pp. 38-40; and Warncke, pp. 13:299-
`
`14:308.)
`
`
`
`Safety was a major consideration in the design of the chair and, in particular,
`
`in the design of the components that releasably join the floor rocker to the saddle;
`
`i.e., the occupied floor rocker must not disconnect from the saddle by weight shifts
`
`or other normal user movements. (‘136 Patent, 5:48-54, 6:43-45, 9:7-13; Harting p.
`
`8:15; Bontrager, pp. 32-35; Warncke, pp. 18:393-19:404; and compare Ex. 2023
`
`with Ex. 2024.) At the same time, the floor rocker easily couples by a simple,
`
`nearly automatic manipulation requiring no tools. (Ex. 2023; and Harting p. 5:11-
`
`13.)
`
`
`
`In the desk or “task” chair configuration, the invention is readily
`
`distinguished from an infant “high chair” by appearance, user age, and structure,
`
`i.e., whereas the patented chair is open to the front in both configurations, infant
`
`high chairs inevitably require forward restraint by way of a removable feed or play
`
`tray. (Warncke, pp. 20:429-21:443; Pollack I; Pollack II; and Mackey.) Nor can the
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`patented chair be folded; the education market is not accepting of folding chairs
`
`and this quality was categorically rejected from the outset. (Bontrager, p. 17; and
`
`Warncke, 27:592.)
`
`
`
`These and other qualities distinguish the invention from the prior art and
`
`have resulted in a commercial product, called the TREY® chair, that has not only
`
`enjoyed both praise and dramatic commercial success, it has been copied.
`
`(Bontrager, pp. 86-95; Ex. 2013 (PC Gamer Magazine, January 2008); Ex. 2014
`
`(Wall Street Journal, September 15, 2007); Ex. 2015 (Plasticnews.com, April 9,
`
`2007); Ex. 2016 (GIZMODO, May 8, 2007); Ex. 2017 (PC World); Ex. 2018
`
`(Treehugger.com, August 21, 2007); Anderson, pp. 23-25, 36, 41, 77, 84-85; Ex.
`
`2057 (Exhibit 39 from Anderson Dec.); Ex. 2058 (Exhibit 53 from Anderson
`
`Dec.); Davis, pp. 13:3-12, 15:16-18:14, 74:16-75:6, 100:8-101:17, 103:25-104:10,
`
`107:3-8 and 110:7-22; and Ex. 2035 (Trey and Wave Comparison).)
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. Claim 1
`
`Petitioner argues that claim 1 describes a generic chair with rocker capability
`
`provided in any fashion, sitting on any kind of base, for any user. This self-serving
`
`and unreasonably broad interpretation glosses over specific claim language and is
`
`wholly inconsistent with the actual disclosure. To its credit, the Board has found
`
`more substance; to wit: (a) the rocker legs are present in both coupled and
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`uncoupled configurations, (b) the “base legs” are not conventional chair legs, (c)
`
`the floor rocker and stool base are “coupled” by way of a receptacle and insert2 and
`
`(d) the term “releasably engaged” means “locked together.” (IPR2015-00774,
`
`paper 7, Aug. 24, 2015.) While these findings are accurate as far as they go, Patent
`
`Owner shows herewith that there is still more substantive content to claim 1 than
`
`the record thus far indicates.
`
`i. The Term “Combination”
`
`The preamble does not use the open-ended term “comprising” immediately
`
`after the word “combination.” Rather, the preamble reads “a combination of a
`
`chair and a stool base portion;” language that says these are the two units that make
`
`up the claimed “combination”. (‘136 Patent, 10:23, and 11:37.) Every part of the
`
`disclosure is consistent with this interpretation. Moreover, such construction is
`
`consistent with the design goal of having no parts that functi