trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2015-01034, Paper No. 36
`May 27, 2016
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`CAMELBAK PRODUCTS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`vs.
`IGNITE USA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2015-01034
`Patent 8,863,979 B2
`Technology Center 3700
`Oral Hearing Held: Monday, May 9, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`Before: SALLY C. MEDLEY, KEN B. BARRETT, and
`AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday,
`May 9, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`REPORTED BY: RAYMOND G. BRYNTESON, RMR,
`
`CRR, RDR
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2015-01034, Paper No. 36
`May 27, 2016
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`CAMELBAK PRODUCTS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`vs.
`IGNITE USA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2015-01034
`Patent 8,863,979 B2
`Technology Center 3700
`Oral Hearing Held: Monday, May 9, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`Before: SALLY C. MEDLEY, KEN B. BARRETT, and
`AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday,
`May 9, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`REPORTED BY: RAYMOND G. BRYNTESON, RMR,
`
`CRR, RDR
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STEPHEN M. SCHAETZEL, ESQ.
`DAVID S. MORELAND, ESQ.
`Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLP
`999 Peachtree Street NE
`Suite 1300
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`404-645-7700
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DAVID D'ASCENZO, ESQ.
`D'Ascenzo Intellectual Property Law, P.C.
`1000 SW Broadway
`Suite 1555
`Portland, Oregon 97205
`503-224-7529
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STEVEN M. WILKER, ESQ.
`
`
`Tonkon Torp LLP
`
`
`1600 Pioneer Tower
`
`
`888 SW Fifth Avenue
`
`
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`
`
`503-802-2040
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01034
`Patent No. 8,863,979 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(10:00 a.m.)
`JUDGE WIEKER: This is the oral hearing for
`IPR2015- 01034 between Petitioner, Camelbak Products, LLC
`and Patent Owner, Ignite USA, LLC concerning U.S. Patent
`Number 8,863,979.
`Counsel for the parties, please introduce
`yourselves starting with Petitioner.
`MR. D'ASCENZO: Dave D'Ascenzo.
`MR. WILKER: Steven Wilker.
`JUDGE WIEKER: Thank you. Patent Owner?
`MR. MORELAND: David Moreland for Patent
`Owner Ignite USA.
`MR. SCHAETZEL: Steve Schaetzel.
`JUDGE WIEKER: Thank you. Thank you and
`welcome to the Board.
`Per our April 13th order, each side will have 30
`minutes to present their arguments. Petitioner will proceed
`first to present its case with respect to the challenged claims
`and the grounds on which the Board instituted trial.
`Patent Owner will then have an opportunity to
`respond to Petitioner's presentation. Petitioner, you may
`reserve rebuttal time to respond to Patent Owner's argument.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01034
`Patent No. 8,863,979 B2
`
`
`And as a reminder, please mention the slide
`number if you refer to any demonstrative exhibits so that it
`will be reflected in the record.
`With that, Mr. D'Ascenzo, would you like to begin
`and would you like to reserve any rebuttal time?
`MR. WILKER: I will be doing the argument. This
`is Steven Wilker.
`JUDGE WIEKER: Okay.
`MR. WILKER: And I would like to reserve half of
`my time for rebuttal.
`JUDGE WIEKER: Okay.
`MR. WILKER: Good morning. May it please the
`Board. We are here today on our IPR petition. We have lined
`down in the petition how each of the claim limitations in the
`'979 patent is disclosed by the Oosterling reference.
`I don't want to belabor the Board today with going
`through what is in our papers but I'm happy to talk about each
`of the claims and how each of the limitations is established by
`the Oosterling reference.
`I'm also happy to answer whatever questions you
`may have regarding the petition, the response and any of the
`evidence that has been submitted.
`I would start with claim 1. I will put just the
`language, start of the language of claim 1 up. But very clearly
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01034
`Patent No. 8,863,979 B2
`
`the Oosterling reference is a lid assembly for a beverage
`container.
`It has a lid housing having a drink aperture. It has
`a seal arm that's connected to the lid housing and that's
`movable between a first position, where it is adjacent to the
`drink aperture, and a second position where it is distal the
`drink aperture.
`JUDGE WIEKER: Can I stop you for a minute?
`MR. WILKER: Absolutely.
`JUDGE WIEKER: I would like to discuss the term
`connected. As you know, Patent Owner has proposed two
`slightly different constructions of the term in their two
`different responses.
`Does that impact the anticipation ground
`construing under either?
`MR. WILKER: In our view it does not, but in any
`event we don't believe that there is a basis for the construction
`they have offered, which is, the front end we look at the
`specification. The specification provides one embodiment but
`it provides only an example.
`And the specification in the '979 patent talks about
`connecting, but nowhere in the claim language, nowhere in the
`patent itself does it say we are defining this term "connected"
`to mean what they say it means.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01034
`Patent No. 8,863,979 B2
`
`
`And without more specific language, as the Board
`pointed out in its Institution Decision, it is not appropriate to
`impose another limitation that simply isn't present in the
`claim.
`
`As we have pointed out, in fact, in the parent
`application they disclaimed, they moved away from the
`language connected and movable, right, amending to do
`connected while movable.
`Now, they have chosen for reasons I don't, you
`know, I can only speculate, but they have chosen to abandon
`that language in this application and they have gone back to
`connected and movable.
`But as the Examiner pointed out, as they conceded
`in the parent application in the prosecution, connected and
`movable does not mean or does not prevent that it can be
`removed. So connected and movable doesn't mean you can't
`remove it, which is what they are saying now, that it prevents
`removal.
`
`But even if that were the case, Oosterling discloses
`a connection. It discloses a hinged coupling. It discloses a
`separate embodiment where the seal arm is separate.
`Figure 10 is a separate embodiment, where
`Oosterling said here, if you want to see it separate, this is a
`different embodiment and we have placed it separately so you
`can wash it separately. There is nothing in Oosterling that
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01034
`Patent No. 8,863,979 B2
`
`suggests that any of the other positions are not connected in
`the cleaning position or in the operable position.
`So from our perspective, maybe it doesn't matter,
`but, even if it does, Oosterling meets it.
`So to continue on -- and if this isn't helpful I don't
`want to belabor your time going through it -- but as the Board
`went through the analysis in the first instance, each of the
`limitations that is in the claim language is disclosed by
`Oosterling.
`So we have a seal arm connected to the lid housing
`in the first position. There is shaft and journal support show
`connected. Patent Owner's expert acknowledges it is
`connected despite Patent Owner's assertion that it is not.
`I apologize. My technology didn't work this
`morning so I'm going old school. The first position is an
`operable position, as it is in Oosterling, for opening and
`closing the drink aperture.
`The second position is a cleaning position where
`the drink aperture is open for cleaning, wherein the seal arm is
`capable of assisting in closing the drink -- is not capable of
`closing the drink aperture in the second position.
`Oosterling, here is the Oosterling lever. It's not
`capable when it is open. It can't open or close for the drinking
`but it is still connected.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01034
`Patent No. 8,863,979 B2
`
`
`So we have really covered the last two elements.
`It is capable of operating the seal arm in the first position and
`cannot be operated by the trigger member in the second
`position. That is claim 1.
`JUDGE WIEKER: Do you mind putting that back
`up for a minute?
`MR. WILKER: Yep.
`JUDGE WIEKER: What is your response to Patent
`Owner's contention that the wherein clauses, after trigger
`member, impact the connection during the two -- in the two
`different positions?
`MR. WILKER: Our position is the wherein clauses
`simply contain another limitation of the patent claim language.
`They don't do anything other than say here is another
`limitation. We have this. We have one limitation. Here is a
`second limitation. Here is a third limitation.
`There is nothing in that that says anything about it
`remaining connected in the second position. But even if it did,
`as I showed you, it is connected. There is nothing to suggest
`it is not connected.
`The sole basis on which Ignite argues that it is not
`connected is their expert's assertion that it will fall out, but
`there is no basis for that. There is nothing in the disclosure
`that suggests it will fall out. Every picture of it shows it not
`falling it, shows it in place.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01034
`Patent No. 8,863,979 B2
`
`
`Oosterling knew how to show something as a
`separate part and didn't. Oosterling talks about putting this lid
`assembly in the dishwasher for cleaning. There is nothing
`about that that suggests that that is not connected. Everything
`in the Oosterling patent says this is the second position, the
`cleaning position, and it is connected.
`The only drawing in which it is not connected is
`the exploded view, but nothing is connected in the exploded
`view. The exploded view is just that. It is an exploded view
`of all the parts, all the parts. That's the only place in
`Oosterling that shows this trigger member not connected.
`Moreover, in claim 5 it talks specifically about --
`in Oosterling it talks specifically about a second hinged
`coupling. That's a connection. It's like the first hinged
`coupling.
`
`The first hinged coupling is the shaft and journal
`support that hold the lever or the seal arm in place. The
`second hinged coupling is what holds the trigger member in
`place or the operating arm.
`That is claim 3, dependent claim, wherein the seal
`arm pivots away -- and I apologize, this is slide 15 -- wherein
`the seal arm pivots away from the drink surface of the lid
`housing when it moves to the second position.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01034
`Patent No. 8,863,979 B2
`
`
`We just looked at Oosterling. It pivots away just
`like described in claim 3. There is nothing about claim 3 that
`adds anything that isn't disclosed by Oosterling.
`Claim 6 is also -- I'm now on slide 16, just the
`language of the claim -- the lid assembly of claim 1. The
`trigger member is pivotally connected to the lid housing, we
`saw how it is pivotally connected at 41 and 42, wherein the
`trigger member can be pivoted from a normal or use position
`to an open position for cleaning purposes.
`That's exactly what we just saw with Oosterling.
`All of those claims are clearly disclosed by the Oosterling
`reference.
`Going on, I will talk about claim 10. Claim 10, the
`language, if you want to see it, is at slide 18 and 19. So we
`have a lid assembly for a beverage container, comprising: A
`lid housing having a drink aperture and a seal arm. Oosterling
`has that.
`
`The seal arm being connected to the lid housing.
`We've shown that this shaft and journal supports are
`connected.
`It is movable between a first position where the
`seal arm is adjacent to the drink aperture and wherein the seal
`arm can assist in closing and opening the drink aperture, just
`like Oosterling.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01034
`Patent No. 8,863,979 B2
`
`
`JUDGE WIEKER: Could you focus on the
`differences between this and claim 1, if you believe there are
`any?
`
`MR. WILKER: I don't believe there are any
`significant differences.
`JUDGE WIEKER: Okay.
`MR. WILKER: The language is repetition. They
`use somewhat different words to describe most of what is in
`claim 1.
`
`They have a second position. The seal arm is
`distal the drink aperture. Distal, away from the drink
`aperture. Oosterling shows that as well.
`This is important because in claim 10, it knows
`how to say, when they want something connected in both the
`first and second positions, they say the seal arm is connected
`in both the first and second position. And we can see that it is
`in Oosterling as well.
`And we know the first position is the operable
`position, and the seal -- and the seal -- when the seal arm is in
`the closed -- or opening position -- excuse me -- for opening
`the drink aperture when the seal arm is in an open position and
`closing the drink aperture when the seal arm is in the closed
`position.
`
`Now, the second position was a cleaning position.
`It is open for cleaning the assembly, just like in Oosterling.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01034
`Patent No. 8,863,979 B2
`
`The cleaning position of the seal arm being different from the
`open position and the closed position of the seal arm, just like
`in Oosterling.
`So what you have is you have different language
`describing much of what is also already contained in claim 1.
`But Oosterling does each of these, discloses each of these
`limitations.
`JUDGE WIEKER: Mr. Wilker, you are
`approaching the end of your 15 minutes. Could we spend a
`few minutes talking about claim 7?
`MR. WILKER: Sure, I would be happy to. Again,
`I don't want to belabor the point by going through the claims
`piece- by-piece because we have done that in our papers.
`Claim 7 is a claim where Ignite has asserted that it
`would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
`the art to make the modification that Dr. Slocum suggests was
`relatively simple, simply changed the spring.
`Those changes are, indeed, quite obvious to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art as Dr. Slocum explains
`in detail in his supplemental declaration as well as in his
`original declaration as well as in his deposition, both
`depositions.
`It is quite simple. The change to go to 90 degrees
`is accomplished quite simply. He moves from a straight, a flat
`straight spring to a flat curved spring, and simply adjusts,
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01034
`Patent No. 8,863,979 B2
`
`makes one single adjustment to the Oosterling design, and that
`adjustment results in being able to swing to 90 degrees.
`As Dr. Slocum pointed out in his opening
`declaration, that allows for increased access to the lever for
`manual cleaning. It also allows and makes it more difficult
`for unintentional closing during the washing process.
`Whether or not the water flow would be sufficient
`to 30 degrees, creating more space, creating more access to the
`cleaning lever, particularly I think in the words of Dr. Slocum,
`if it is especially goopy, if your coffee and your cream is
`especially goopy, this gives you another option to get manual
`cleaning.
`
`And that is why a person having ordinary skill in
`the art would be motivated to make the change and why it
`would be a simple change. And Dr. Slocum described that
`change in his initial declaration.
`When Ignite's expert could not fathom how that
`might be accomplished, Dr. Slocum demonstrated it through a
`few simple steps how he would go through each step of the
`design process to make that change.
`This was a simple modification. He modified one
`aspect of Oosterling leaving everything else constant. There
`is nothing difficult. There is nothing -- there is no major
`redesign. There is a slight modification, a simple
`modification.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01034
`Patent No. 8,863,979 B2
`
`
`Dr. Slocum showed three alternatives of it. And
`that lever, those levers are shown on slide 11. Now, these are
`three alternatives, but each of them are very simple changes to
`the Oosterling lever. As Dr. Slocum showed, each of these
`works.
`
`We show in slide 7, this is lever version 1 at 90
`degrees, and then in the position ready to -- before it goes
`through for cleaning. We showed the same thing for lever 2 in
`slide number 9. Again, simple modifications. He took the
`Oosterling design. He was able to make this quite simple
`modification and achieve 90 degrees.
`In our view that makes this quite an obvious
`change. There is nothing difficult. There is nothing unusual.
`And Dr. Slocum is absolutely qualified to testify as to what a
`person having ordinary skill in the art would know here.
`He teaches. He publishes. He designs. He is an
`inventor. And he knows that these are basic, very -- quite
`basic concepts. He simply swapped one spring for another.
`And as you saw from the pictures, that allowed the simple
`change and it allowed it to go to 90 degrees.
`In our view that makes it quite obvious and,
`therefore, unpatentable in view of Oosterling. With that I will
`reserve my time unless you have additional questions.
`JUDGE WIEKER: That's great. Thank you.
`Mr. Moreland.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01034
`Patent No. 8,863,979 B2
`
`
`MR. MORELAND: Thank you, Your Honor. This
`is a logistics question. Would the Board care for a copy of
`Patent Owner's slides?
`JUDGE WIEKER: No, thank you.
`MR. MORELAND: May it please the Board.
`Patent Owner submits that Petitioner has not proven that the
`instituted claims are not patentable.
`I am going to reference PO exhibit and slide
`number as I go through this presentation. PO Exhibit 2
`provides the instituted grounds for claims 1, 3, 6 and 10
`through 15. Petitioner must show that each and every claim
`limitation in those claims is expressly or inherently disclosed
`in the Oosterling reference. Petitioner has not and cannot do
`so.
`
`As it relates to claim 7, claim 7 is the only
`obviousness ground in this case. As to claim 7, Petitioner
`must show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`and could have modified Oosterling to make the lever 37 in
`Oosterling pivot to 90 degrees. Petitioner has not and cannot
`show that.
`I will first discuss the term "connected" because
`the Board has already asked a question on this. And as the
`Board is well aware, claim 1 requires a seal arm connected to
`the lid housing and a trigger member connected to the lid
`housing. The term connected is undisputed.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01034
`Patent No. 8,863,979 B2
`
`
`The term connected has various ordinary meanings.
`To one of ordinary skill in the art, you can have a very loose
`connection that is meant to be disassociated or you can have a
`very strong connection that is not meant to be disassociated.
`When a term has multiple ordinary meanings like
`that, the Federal Circuit in the Kaneka Corp. case back in 2015
`said you've got to look to the patent specification and you
`must look to the file history to figure out what the Patent
`Owner was talking about when he uses that term.
`Here the Patent Owner is very, very clear that
`when it uses the term connected, it has a specific meaning,
`that is, that the components, specifically here the trigger
`member and the seal arm, must be connected at all times, and
`they cannot be misplaced or disassociated from the lid
`assembly.
`So a coupling, a simple coupling that is intended to
`be disassociated or a component that is coupled to the lid that
`is intended to be disassociated from that lid does not cut it
`under the '979 patent.
`JUDGE WIEKER: I have a question for you --
`MR. MORELAND: Yeah, sure.
`JUDGE WIEKER: -- about in the preliminary
`response you used the term permanent.
`MR. MORELAND: Yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01034
`Patent No. 8,863,979 B2
`
`
`JUDGE WIEKER: And the Board relied on that
`term in construing connected. In the Patent Owner response
`the focus shifts to not being misplaced or disassociated.
`Does permanent include preventing misplacement
`or disassociation? Are they essentially two sides of the same
`construction?
`MR. MORELAND: Yes, I think permanent is an
`example of the requirement that is provided by the claim,
`provided by the patent specification in that the component
`cannot be disassociated.
`As a shortcut for that, Patent Owner used the term
`permanent. Maybe that was misguided in the sense of
`deviating the Board from the language that is in the patent
`specification, but the patent specification is very clear on what
`it means.
`
`The component cannot be misplaced or
`disassociated. If it can be, then it is not connected. Whether
`that means permanent or not is a separate issue.
`JUDGE WIEKER: Okay. So in the Patent Owner
`response, I think in a footnote you note that the Board
`misconstrued the term permanent.
`In what way does the Board's construction -- how
`does it matter whether the Board construes it as permanent or
`preventing misplacement or disassociation? Does that
`difference impact how it applies to the claim?
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01034
`Patent No. 8,863,979 B2
`
`
`MR. MORELAND: No, that would be a difference
`without a distinction.
`JUDGE WIEKER: Okay.
`MR. MORELAND: If the Board were to adopt the
`permanent language, as suggested in the preliminary response,
`the end result would be the same.
`JUDGE WIEKER: Okay.
`MR. MORELAND: Here -- I say that saying that
`permanent, though, the patent specification says it cannot be
`misplaced or disassociated, so I don't believe the Board has to
`get to a construction that finds that connected means
`permanent. It just has to get to the construction or should get
`to the construction that connected means it cannot be
`misplaced or disassociated.
`JUDGE WIEKER: Okay.
`MR. MORELAND: The file history as
`well supports -- this is Patent Owner's Exhibit 7, this is a slide
`from the '176 patent file history that is the parent application
`to the '979 patent -- this shows the Patent Owner has been
`consistent with telling the -- with its understanding of the
`word connected during the application process and beyond.
`Here in the prosecution history the Patent Owner
`says that, referring to the seal arm, the seal arm cannot be
`disassembled from the lid. And it reiterates the language that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01034
`Patent No. 8,863,979 B2
`
`we've been talking about: The component cannot be displaced
`or disassociated from the lid assembly.
`So Patent Owner has been very clear all throughout
`the prosecution history, and in accord with the patent
`specification, that when it uses the term connected it means
`that the component cannot be misplaced or disassociated from
`the lid assembly.
`JUDGE WIEKER: Turning your attention to
`column 4, about line 9 of the '979 patent, Exhibit 1001, where
`the Patent Owner said the present disclosure is considered as
`an exemplification of the principles of the invention and is
`not intended to limit the broad aspect of the invention to the
`embodiments illustrated.
`Does that impact at all the embodiment disclosed
`at column 4, line 35?
`MR. MORELAND: No, it is provided as an
`exemplary embodiment but it is the only exemplary
`embodiment that is provided in the patent specification.
`Furthermore, when you step down column 4 and
`you read the language that says "importantly," it is broadening
`that out. It is telling you for the word connected, when it is
`using that word, that term, it is giving the specific meaning
`that it has accorded throughout the prosecution history to that
`term.
`
`JUDGE WIEKER: Okay.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01034
`Patent No. 8,863,979 B2
`
`
`MR. MORELAND: Now, what I want to make sure
`the Board understands is that even if the Board does not adopt
`Patent Owner's proposed construction, it still -- Petitioner's
`argument still would fail. Petitioner has said, has pointed to
`hinge couplings in Oosterling.
`I want to make a simple analogy to show that a
`coupling, just a reference to a coupling does not mean that a
`component is connected.
`So the analogy here, of course, is we've got a toilet
`paper holder, as the Board can see on PO Exhibit 8. The toilet
`paper holder has a spindle. I'm sure everybody is aware of the
`spindle on a toilet paper holder. That spindle is coupled in
`two places, one on the left and one to the right.
`If I walk to the spindle and pull just one coupling
`out and release the spindle, the spindle falls to the floor. The
`fact that I didn't uncouple the right side, if I uncouple the left
`side it doesn't matter, after I uncouple one side it's no longer
`connected.
`So just because there is a coupling does not mean
`that a component is connected.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: This is an exhibit in the
`
`record?
`
`MR. MORELAND: This is a demonstrative for the
`Board's consideration. This is an analogy for what I am about
`to proceed with.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01034
`Patent No. 8,863,979 B2
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: And you put that argument in
`your Patent Owner response, the toilet paper dispenser?
`MR. MORELAND: No, ma'am. I'm providing it
`just as an exemplary demonstrative for purposes of this
`hearing.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Well, that is arguably
`new, a new argument that you are presenting to us, which is
`beyond the purpose of our hearing today, which is to stick
`strictly with the record and the arguments made in your
`response.
`
`MR. MORELAND: This is an analogy to the
`argument made regarding Oosterling.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: I understand, but it still should
`be tailored to what you presented in your response.
`MR. MORELAND: Okay. Understood. Well, let's
`move to Oosterling then.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Because -- and I will just
`follow up on that -- because the Petitioner has not had an
`opportunity to see that and to explain why that is not relevant
`to a drink lid or why that is not pertinent to what we're talking
`about today. So that's the whole reason why it is sort of
`unfair.
`
`MR. MORELAND: Understood. We did share
`these slides, of course, in advance of this oral hearing and
`there were no objections by Petitioner to the slides, so I just
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01034
`Patent No. 8,863,979 B2
`
`point that out, so they did have advance notice that we
`intended to use this analogy in the sense of the slide.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. Proceed.
`MR. MORELAND: Thank you. Here this is
`Oosterling. This is when the lid is connected -- excuse me,
`excuse me, when the lid is -- yes, when the lid is connected to
`the beaker. You can see the lever 37 is in the operating
`position when those two components are together.
`The operating arm 52 is coupled at the top where
`the projection 35 interfaces with the pressure surface 43. And
`it is also coupled at the bottom where the hook 42 interfaces
`with opening 41.
`But as soon as the lid is removed from the beaker
`in Oosterling, and the lever 37 is placed in the cleaning
`position, the operating arm 52 is no longer coupled on the top.
`That pressure surface and projection are no longer coupled.
`The only point of touching on this figure is at the
`very bottom where the hook 42 is inserted in hole 41. That is
`a hinge coupling, as stated in the Oosterling disclosure. When
`the lid is removed, as shown in figure 9, the operating arm is
`simply going to fall off of the lid and disassociate from the
`lid.
`
`JUDGE WIEKER: And can you identify what you
`are relying on as showing that would fall off? Is there
`anything in Oosterling that supports that position?
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01034
`Patent No. 8,863,979 B2
`
`
`MR. MORELAND: Yes. Figures 8a and 8c would
`support the fact that that component is not intended to be
`remain connected to the lid.
`JUDGE WIEKER: Does Oosterling describe that
`as an exploded view as Petitioner contended?
`MR. MORELAND: It does not. It does not --
`Oosterling does not describe this as an exploded view. In fact,
`while Petitioner says that everything is disconnected in 8a and
`8b, that's wrong. 8a, figure 8a was not shown here. Let me
`grab a paper of 8a.
`Figure 8a shows that the valve 6, indeed, is
`connected in what has been labeled as an exploded view. But,
`again, Oosterling never refers to 8a or 8b as an exploded view.
`As Mr. Steininger, Petitioner's expert in this case
`-- excuse me, Patent Owner's expert in this case has said, at
`the time, at the relevant time period, components were
`designed to be removed for cleaning. So Oosterling is in
`accord with what would have been performed as it relates to
`the cleaning of the lid at the time. Figure 8a and 8b support
`that.
`
`Now, Petitioner argues that there is a snap fit. I
`will refer to PO Exhibit 10. Petitioner argues that here at the
`hook 42 and 41, this operating arm remains connected or
`remains coupled because there is a so- called snap fit here.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01034
`Patent No. 8,863,979 B2
`
`
`Petitioner's expert disagrees. Petitioner's expert
`has no -- has stated that the specification of Oosterling doesn't
`say what happens to the operating arm when the lever 37 is
`placed in the cleaning position. As he said, it is not telling me
`one way or the other what is going to happen.
`Petitioner's expert also said that the figures simply
`don't tell him enough to define a snap fit. The hook 42 and
`hole 41, he just says it moves. He doesn't say that it remains
`-- excuse me, he specifically says that there is not enough
`information to determine from the figures that that would be
`coupled or remained couple because of a snap fit.
`The only evidence that Petitioner's expert was able
`to cite to in the specification to support his argument that the
`operating arm remains connected when the lever is placed in
`the cleaning position is the so- called claim 5 in Oosterling.
`And I want to provide the Board claim 5.
`Claim 5 provides no additional information over
`what is already in the patent specification -- or in the
`disclosure of Oosterling. All it references is, again, a second
`hinge coupling, a hinge coupling that references back to the
`hook 42 and the hole 41.
`This does not support Petitioner's argument that
`there is a snap fit connection that retains the operating arm
`when the lever 37 is placed in the cleaning position.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01034
`Patent No. 8,863,979 B2
`
`
`JUDGE WIEKER: But doesn't figure 9, regardless
`of whether it is a snap fit or not, doesn't figure 9 show the
`cleaning position where the lid is removed from the beaker and
`the operating arm 52 is at least depicted as remaining
`connected?
`MR. MORELAND: This is a picture -- it shows the
`operating arm 52 disassociating in this picture. It does not
`show it connected. Again, it only shows a hinge coupling.
`The fact that it shows a hinge coupling does not tell us that
`that hook remains within hole 41. And, again, Petitioner's
`expert has no evidence to point to that would say other
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
