throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 15
`Entered: March 6, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TRISTAR PRODUCTS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHOON’S DESIGN, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01883
`Patent 8,684,420 B2
`____________
`
`Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Vice Chief Administrative
`Patent Judge, JEREMY M. PLENZLER and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01883
`Patent 8,684,420 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`We have jurisdiction to hear this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 6. This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons discussed herein, we determine that
`Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 3 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,684,420 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’420 patent”) is unpatentable.
`A. Procedural History
`Tristar Products, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes
`review of claims 1, 3, and 6 of the ’420 patent. Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Petitioner
`provided a Declaration of Youjiang Wang, Ph.D., P.E. (Ex. 1015) to support
`its positions. Choon’s Design, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 5 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Prior to institution, Patent Owner
`disclaimed claims 1 and 6 of the ’420 patent. See Prelim. Resp. 11;
`Ex. 2018.
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), on March 9, 2016, we instituted inter
`partes review to determine whether claim 3 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102 as anticipated by La Croix1; and whether claim 3 is unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of La Croix. Paper 6 (“Inst.
`Dec.”). Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 10 (“PO Resp.”)), along with a Declaration of Mr. Cheong
`Choon Ng (Ex. 2026) to support its positions.2 Petitioner filed a Reply
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 1,776,561, issued Sept. 23, 1930 (Ex. 1012).
`2 We note that the Patent Owner Response includes wholesale citations to
`several paragraphs of Mr. Ng’s Declaration without corresponding
`discussion in the Response itself. See, e.g., PO Resp. 7–9. This amounts to
`an improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). The
`Patent Owner Response and Mr. Ng’s Declaration, however, combine to less
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01883
`Patent 8,684,420 B2
`
`(Paper 11 (“Pet. Reply”)) to the Patent Owner Response. An oral hearing
`was held on December 6, 2016. A transcript of the hearing is included in the
`record. Paper 14 (“Tr.”).
`B. Related Proceedings
`The parties identify several district court proceedings involving
`the ’420 patent. Pet. 2–3; Paper 4, 2. The ’420 patent has been asserted
`against Petitioner in one of those pending district court proceedings—
`namely, Choon’s Design LLC v. Tristar Products, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-
`10848 (E.D. Mich.). Pet. 1. The ’420 patent was the subject of a previously
`filed post-grant review proceeding—LaRose Indus., LLC v. Choon’s Design
`Inc., Case PGR2014-00008—which was terminated prior to institution in
`response to a Joint Motion to Terminate filed by the parties. Id. at 3;
`Paper 4, 2. The ’420 patent also was challenged in IdeaVillage Products,
`Corp. v. Choon’s Design, LLC, in which institution was denied. Case
`IPR2015-01143 (PTAB Nov. 9, 2015) (Paper 6); Pet. 3; Paper 4, 1.
`Related U.S. Patent No. 8,485,565 B2 (“the ’565 patent”) also was the
`subject of four previous inter partes review proceedings, including: LaRose
`Indus., LLC v. Choon’s Design, LLC, Case IPR2014-00218 (all challenged
`claims disclaimed after institution; Joint Motion for Adverse Judgment
`granted); LaRose Indus., LLC v. Choon’s Design Inc., Case IPR2014-01353
`
`
`than 33 pages in total. Thus, in the interest of justice and based on the
`particular facts and circumstances of this proceeding we waive 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.6(a)(3) with respect to the Patent Owner Response, and consider the
`portions of Mr. Ng’s Declaration cited in the Patent Owner Response to also
`be included therein. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) (“The Board may waive or
`suspend a requirement of parts 1, 41, and 42 and may place conditions on
`the waiver or suspension.”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01883
`Patent 8,684,420 B2
`
`(all challenged claims disclaimed prior to institution; institution denied);
`Tristar Products, Inc. v. Choon’s Design Inc., Case IPR2015-00838
`(institution denied under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)); and IdeaVillage Products,
`Corp. v. Choon’s Design, LLC, Case IPR2015-01139 (institution denied).
`Pet. 3–4; Paper 4, 1.
`C. The ’420 Patent
`The ’420 patent is titled “Brunnian Link Making Device and Kit” and
`relates to a kit and method for creating a linked item formed from a series of
`links, such as “Brunnian” links. Ex. 1001, 1:1, 1:31–38, 2:33–35.
`“A Brunnian link is a link formed from a closed loop doubled over itself to
`capture another closed loop to form a chain.” Id. at 1:31–33. The ’420
`patent provides examples of linked items such as “bracelets, necklaces[,] and
`other wearable or decorative items.” Id. at 2:34–35, Fig. 2. The ’420 patent
`discloses that kits for making uniquely colored bracelets and necklaces have
`always been popular, but that “such kits usually just include the raw
`materials such as different colored threads and beads and rely on the
`individual’s skill and talent to construct a usable a desirable item.” Id. at
`1:18–23. Thus, according to the ’420 patent, “there is a need and desire for
`a kit that . . . simplifies construction to make it easy for people of many skill
`and artistic levels to successfully create a desirable and durable wearable
`item.” Id. at 1:23–27.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01883
`Patent 8,684,420 B2
`
`
`Figures 4, 5A, and 5B of the ’420 patent illustrate the basic
`components of the kit and are reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 4 is a perspective view of an example pin bar. Id. at 1:65. Figure 5A
`is a perspective view of interfacing surfaces of an example base and the
`example pin bar. Id. at 1:66–67. Figure 5B is a perspective view of a pin
`bar mounted to an example base. Id. at 2:1–2.
`The kit includes base 12 that forms a support for pin bars 14. Id. at
`2:47–48. One or more pin bars 14 can be mounted to one or more bases 12
`to provide a desired configuration. Id. at 2:51–54, 2:59–62. Each base 12
`includes tabs (keys) 32, and each pin bar 14 includes slots 34 that receive
`tabs 32 to maintain pin bars 14 on base 12 in a desired orientation. Id. at
`3:1–5. Pin bars 14 each include a plurality of pins 26. Id. at 2:48.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01883
`Patent 8,684,420 B2
`
`
`Figure 6 of the ’420 patent, reproduced below, illustrates pin 26.
`
`
`Figure 6 is a perspective view of one pin, illustrating the portions of pin 26.
`Id. at 2:3–4. Pin 26 includes flanged top 38, mid portion 46, bottom
`portion 44, and front access groove 40. Id. at 3:12–13, 3:26–27. Flanged
`top 38 and bottom portion 44 are each flared outward relative to mid
`portion 46.
`Pins 26 hold links, such as rubber bands 52, 54, 56, in a desired
`position during assembly of the linked item, as illustrated in Figures 14A–
`14C, reproduced below.
`
`Figures 14A–14C are perspective views of assembly steps for creating a
`Brunnian linked article, illustrating a portion of bar 42 and pins 26, and a
`process of making a chain of linked items from elastic bands 52, 54, 56,
`using hook tool 16. Id. at 2:17–18, 4:3–36.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01883
`Patent 8,684,420 B2
`
`
`The ’420 patent explains that top and bottom flared portions 38, 44
`center rubber bands 52, 54, 56 on mid portion 46, and top flared portion 38
`prevents errant release of rubber bands 52, 54, 56 during creation of the
`links. Id. at 3:16–18, 3:29–31. It is important to maintain rubber bands 52,
`54, 56 on pins 26 during creation of a Brunnian link chain because “[e]ach
`link [of the chain] depends on the previous and subsequent links to maintain
`the desired shape and integrity” of the chain. Id. at 2:43–45. “Removing
`one link 20 results in all of the links becoming loose from each other.” Id. at
`2:45–46.
`As seen above, ends of adjacent rubber bands (e.g., 56, 54) are
`disposed on a common pin 26. Id. at 4:7–12. Hook 16 is inserted into
`access groove 40 of common pin 26 to grasp the end of rubber band 54 and
`pull rubber band 54 onto subsequent pin 26, thereby linking rubber bands 54
`and 56. Id. at 4:17–28. The process is repeated for subsequent rubber bands
`(52, etc.) until a desired linked item is created. Id. at 4:19–30. Free ends of
`the linked item are then secured by a clip. Id. at 4:37–41, Figs. 15, 16.
`D. Challenged Claim
`Claim 3, the only challenged claim, depends from independent
`claim 1. Claims 1 and 3 are reproduced below:
`1. A device for creating an item consisting of a series of
`links, the device comprising:
`a base; and
`a plurality of pins supported on the base, wherein each of
`the plurality of pins includes a top portion for holding a link in a
`desired orientation and an opening on at least one side of each of
`the plurality of pins,
`wherein the plurality of pins comprises rows of offset pins
`spaced apart and extending upward from the base.
`Ex. 1001, 5:18–26 (additional formatting added).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01883
`Patent 8,684,420 B2
`
`
`3. The device as recited in claim 1, wherein the top portion
`comprises a flared portion for holding a link in place on at least
`one of the plurality of pins.
`Id. at 5:30–32.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Principles of Law – Anticipation and Obviousness
`To prevail in its challenges to the patentability of the claims, a
`petitioner must establish facts supporting its challenges by a preponderance
`of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). “In an [inter
`partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with
`particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v.
`Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C.
`§ 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with
`particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to
`each claim”)). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic
`Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
`2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–
`27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).
`To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged
`as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference.
`See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
`2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed.
`Cir. 2001). Although the elements must be arranged or combined in the
`same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis
`test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d
`1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); accord In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01883
`Patent 8,684,420 B2
`
`Cir. 1990). Further, to be anticipating, a prior art reference must be enabling
`and must describe the claimed invention sufficiently to have placed it in
`possession of a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention. Helifix
`Ltd. v. Blok-Lok, Ltd., 208 F.3d 1339, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Paulsen,
`30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
`406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of
`underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art3; and (4) objective evidence
`of nonobviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
`(1966). In an inter partes review, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of
`proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re
`Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus,
`to prevail Petitioner must explain how the prior art would have rendered the
`challenged claim unpatentable.
`
`
`3 Neither party provides an express definition of the level of ordinary skill in
`the art in its briefing. See Pet. generally; PO Resp. generally; but see
`Ex. 1015 ¶ 8 (Dr. Wang testifying as to the level of ordinary skill). We
`determine that no express finding is necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute.
`See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior
`art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01883
`Patent 8,684,420 B2
`
`
`At this final stage, we determine whether a preponderance of the
`evidence of the record shows that the challenged claim is anticipated by
`and/or would have been obvious in view of the asserted prior art. We
`analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with those
`principles.
`B. Summary of La Croix
`Each of the grounds upon which trial was instituted relies on
`La Croix. La Croix relates to a knitting board. Ex. 1012, 1:1–4. Figures
`1–3 of La Croix are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figures 1 and 2 illustrate a top plan view and sectional view, respectively, of
`the device of La Croix, and Figure 3 illustrates a perspective view of a cotter
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01883
`Patent 8,684,420 B2
`
`pin used with the device. Id. at 1:30–35. As described in La Croix, the
`knitting board includes “means for supporting the yarn, yet permitting
`different portions of the yarn to be released from the supporting means as the
`knitting proceeds.” Id. at 1:6–11.
`In the disclosed embodiment, La Croix describes using cotter pins 3
`for supporting the knitted work. Id. at 1:20–22. As seen in Figure 3 of
`La Croix, cotter pins 3 have “two leg portions 5, an eyelet 6, a round head 7
`and flat faces.” Id. at 1:45–48. Pins 3 are arranged within recesses 4 on
`board 1 such that yarn 9 may be “passed around the cotter pins 3 in a zig zag
`fashion.” Id. at 1:35–45, 2:52–54. La Croix further describes that cotter
`pins are “the best type of pin to use for the work, since it has flat sides or
`faces [] that permit the yarn to be removed over the head 7 without unduly
`stretching the yarn.” Id. at 2:67–71.
`Claim Construction
`C.
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed
`Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of
`the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). Pursuant to that standard,
`the claim language should be read in light of the specification, as it would be
`interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, we generally give claim terms
`their ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary
`meaning ‘is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01883
`Patent 8,684,420 B2
`
`skill in the art in question.’” (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc))).
`The claims, however, “should always be read in light of the
`specification and teachings in the underlying patent,” and “[e]ven under the
`broadest reasonable interpretation, the Board’s construction ‘cannot be
`divorced from the specification and the record evidence.’” Microsoft Corp.
`v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citations omitted).
`In other words, “[u]nder a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of
`the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is
`inconsistent with the specification and prosecution history.”
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(citing Straight Path IP Grp., Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O., 806 F.3d 1356, 1362
`(Fed. Cir. 2015)). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth
`in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.
`See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. However, limitations are not to be read from
`the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184
`(Fed. Cir. 1993).
`The parties’ dispute requires construction of the term “link,” as well
`as the phrase “the top portion comprises a flared portion for holding a
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01883
`Patent 8,684,420 B2
`
`link in place.” We discuss each of these in turn.4 No other claim terms
`require construction for purposes of this Decision.5
`link
`We did not construe “link” in our Decision on Institution. In its
`Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner argues that the Decision on
`Institution should have provided a construction for the term. See PO
`Resp. 1–2. Patent Owner asserts that a “‘link’ is a relationship between two
`things” or “a ring or loop, such as the elastic bands” of the ’420 patent. Id.
`at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:31–33, 4:37–39; Ex. 2019). In its Reply, Petitioner
`argues that the term “link” should be construed as “a plurality of continuous
`looped structures without forming an actual knot.” Pet. Reply. 3 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 2:36–39).
`As discussed in the ’420 patent, a “Brunnian link is a link formed
`from a closed loop doubled over itself to capture another closed loop to form
`
`
`4 In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner challenges our use of the
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard for claim construction. See PO
`Resp. 1, 6. After Patent Owner filed its Response, however, the Supreme
`Court in Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2144–46, found the use of the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard to be appropriate in an inter partes
`review. Thus, Patent Owner’s argument on this point lacks merit.
`5 We previously construed “rows of offset pins,” recited in claim 1, from
`which claim 3 depends, as requiring the alignment of adjacent rows of pins
`be staggered relative to each other. See Inst. Dec. 12–14. The parties do not
`dispute this construction, and we maintain this construction for purposes of
`this Final Written Decision.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01883
`Patent 8,684,420 B2
`
`a chain.” Ex. 1001, 1:31–33. Figure 3 of the ’420 patent is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`Figure 3 is a schematic view of a series of Brunnian links. Id. at 1:64. As
`seen in Figure 3, “Brunnian link 20 is formed from a continuous looped
`structure without forming an actual knot.” Id. at 2:36–37. As described in
`the ’420 patent, “[s]everal links are formed in a chain to form a circular
`structure.” Id. at 2:38–39.
`Based on the parties’ arguments and the disclosure in the ’420 patent,
`we construe a “link” as one of a plurality of continuous looped structures
`(i.e., closed loops) connected without forming a knot.
`the top portion comprises a flared portion for holding a link in place
`Petitioner asserts, in the Petition, that the phrase “the top portion
`comprises a flared portion for holding a link in place” should be
`construed to mean “a portion of a pin located at the top of the pin and
`expanding outward in shape.” Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1014; Ex. 1001,
`3:15–16, Fig. 6; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 23–24). Petitioner further argues that
`“[b]ecause the claims do not limit the direction in which the top flared
`portion expands, . . . the direct[ion] of expansion can be in any
`direction, including laterally, radially, or axially.” Id. at 11.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01883
`Patent 8,684,420 B2
`
`
`In our Decision on Institution, we did not expressly construe this
`phrase, but determined, for purposes of that Decision, that round head 7 of
`the asserted reference, La Croix, “spreads outward near the top of pin 3, and,
`thus, is ‘flared,’ as claimed.” Inst. Dec. 23. Based on Petitioner’s argument
`and evidence at that early stage of the proceeding, we determined that
`Petitioner had established a reasonable likelihood of showing claim 3 is
`anticipated by La Croix. See id. at 21–23.
`In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner argues that the Decision
`on Institution’s finding that La Croix’s cotter pin heads are “flared” “reads
`the limitation unreasonably broad[ly].” PO Resp. 2. According to Patent
`Owner, the phrase “a top flared portion for holding a link in a desired
`orientation” should be construed to mean “the pins have a portion that
`projects outward in at least two dimensions near an end spaced from the
`base, and [is] capable of holding a link in a desired orientation on the pin
`during creation of a linked item.” Id. Further, according to Patent Owner,
`“[t]o hold a link in a desired orientation, the top flared portion must be
`sufficiently enlarged that it can capture, and importantly hold, the link as the
`Brunnian link is created. During manipulation of the bands, a lowermost
`band is captured and pulled while an uppermost band must remain on the
`pin.” Id. at 3 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:17–30, Figs. 14A–C).
`Patent Owner continues that although “[t]he term ‘flared’ is not
`specifically defined in the specification, . . . as illustrated, it shows a portion
`projecting outward from the center axis of the pin in at least two dimensions.
`Id. (citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 6, 9). As Patent Owner notes (id.), the ’420 patent
`describes that the top flared portion is intended to “prevent errant release of
`a rubber band during creation of a link.” Ex. 1001, 3:16–17. Patent Owner
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01883
`Patent 8,684,420 B2
`
`further argues that the ’420 patent, when discussing bottom portion 44,
`“makes clear that ‘flared’ is defined as ‘outward from a diameter of a
`mid portion 46’” of pin 26. PO Resp. 3 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:26–29).
`Patent Owner further points to the dictionary definition submitted by
`Petitioner (Ex. 1014), which defines “flare” as “[t]o expand or open outward
`in shape; a skirt that flares from the waist; nostrils that flared with anger.”
`PO Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 1014, definition 4). Patent Owner argues that “[b]oth
`a skirt, and nostrils flare about the circumference of the center of the flared
`item.” Id. (emphasis added).
`Thus, according to Patent Owner, the claimed “flared portion is
`‘flared about the center axis of the pin,’ and must be sufficient to hold a
`link.” PO Resp. 4; see also id. at 6. In particular, Patent Owner argues that
`the term “flared” requires more than “simply expanding or opening
`outward,” but further requires particular direction or amount of outward
`expansion. Id. at 4. In other words, Patent Owner argues that the “flared
`portion” must be sufficiently flared to be capable of holding a link in place,
`as also recited in the claim.
`In its Reply, Petitioner argues that we should “reject Patent Owner’s
`narrow construction for ‘top flared portion’” “[f]or the same reasons
`addressed in [the] Decision Denying Patent Owner’s Request for
`Rehearing.” Pet. Reply 5 (referencing Paper 9 (“Dec. on Reh’g”)).
`Substantively, Petitioner repeats its argument from the Petition (Pet.
`11)—namely, that “[b]ecause the claims do not limit the direction in
`which the top flared portion expands, . . . the direct[ion] of expansion
`can be in any direction, including laterally, radially, or axially.” Pet.
`Reply 5. Further according to Petitioner, the language “for holding a link in
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01883
`Patent 8,684,420 B2
`
`a desired orientation”6 “does not recite a positive structural limitation and
`thus should not be accorded patentable weight.” Id. at 5–6. Finally,
`Petitioner argues that the claim “does not require holding bands while
`moving bands between the pins.” Id. at 12 n.4.
`As instructed by the Federal Circuit, “[e]ven under the broadest
`reasonable interpretation, [our] construction ‘cannot be divorced from the
`specification and the record evidence.’” Microsoft v. Proxyconn, 789 F.3d at
`1298 (citations omitted). The ’420 patent is titled “Brunnian Link Making
`Device and Kit.” Ex. 1001, at [54]. The entire written description of
`the ’420 patent relates to forming Brunnian linked articles, thus suggesting
`that the “top portion compris[ing] a flared portion,” as claimed, must be
`capable of holding a link in place—a capability necessary to forming a
`Brunnian linked article. On that point, Mr. Ng, Patent Owner’s declarant,7
`testifies:
`
`Creation of a Brunnian link using a loom device requires
`grasping a portion of a lower band on a first pin and moving the
`grasped portion of the lower band through a top band on the same
`
`6 We note, the language in claim 3 is “the top portion comprises a flared
`portion for holding a link in place” and not the language from claim 1,
`argued by Petitioner, namely that the top portion is “for holding the
`link in a desired orientation.”
`7 Petitioner argues that we should give Mr. Ng’s testimony less weight
`because he is the inventor of the ’420 patent. See Tr. 12:17–24. Petitioner
`has not, however, moved to exclude Mr. Ng’s testimony. We have
`considered Petitioner’s argument, and given Mr. Ng’s testimony appropriate
`weight in rendering this Decision. Further, as the Federal Circuit has
`explained, expert testimony is not always necessary in Board proceedings.
`See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1079 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`(“Board members, because of expertise, may more often find it easier to
`understand and soundly explain the teachings and suggestions of prior art
`without expert assistance.”).
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01883
`Patent 8,684,420 B2
`
`
`first pin to a second pin. If one of the lower band or the top band
`comes free from the first pin during movement of the lower band,
`the entire linked item would come loose and no link would be
`formed.
`Accordingly, creation of Brunnian link requires that the
`top most band be held on the first pin while the grasped portion
`of the lower band is moved to the second pin
`Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 25–26. This testimony is consistent with the description in the
`Specification of the ’420 patent. See Ex. 1001, 2:43–46, 4:3–5, 4:17–30,
`Figs. 14A–C.
`Further according to Mr. Ng,
`For a link or rubber band to be held in place according to
`[the] invention [of the ’420 patent], the flared top must expand
`outwardly at positions other than the sides of the pin.
`* * * * *
`A top portion, as disclosed in the ’420 patent, includes a
`flange that expands outwardly around the pin and at locations
`other than the sides to hold the top band in place on the first pin
`when the lower band is moved.
`During movement of the lower most band to the second
`pin, a portion of the lower band is slide around the sides of the
`first pin. During this sliding movement, the lower band moves
`between the flared portion and the top band at the sides of the
`first pin. The top band is therefore not held on the sides of the
`flared portion during this time. During this time the top band is
`held on the first pin by a forward side of the flared portion.
`Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 24, 27–28. This testimony also is consistent with the
`description in the Specification of the ’420 patent. See Ex. 1001, 2;43–46,
`3:13–17, 3:31–33, 4:3–5, 4:17–30, Figs. 6–9, 14A–C.
`We recognize that we previously chose to not adopt Patent Owner’s
`proposed construction for the “flared portion.” See Inst. Dec. 22–23;
`Dec. on Reh’g, 2–4. At institution, however, “the Board is considering the
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01883
`Patent 8,684,420 B2
`
`matter preliminarily without the benefit of a full record.” Trivascular, Inc.,
`812 F.3d at 1068. As the Federal Circuit has recognized, “[t]he Board is free
`to change its view of the merits after further development of the record, and
`should do so if convinced its initial inclinations were wrong. To conclude
`otherwise would collapse these two very different analyses into one.” Id.
`We stated explicitly in the Decision on Institution that “we [had] not made a
`final determination with respect to the patentability of any challenged claim
`or the construction of any claim term.” Inst. Dec. 26. Accordingly, both
`parties were put on express notice that the claim construction set forth in the
`Decision on Institution was not final and could change in the Final Written
`Decision. Both parties were afforded adequate process by which to address
`any argument supporting their views as to the proper claim construction, in
`the Patent Owner Response and Petitioner’s Reply.
`Based on the entire record now before us, we agree with Patent Owner
`that the claimed “the top portion compris[ing] a flared portion for
`holding a link in place,” requires the top portion of the pin must flare
`about the circumference of the pin in such a manner as to be capable of
`holding a link in place for forming a Brunnian link.8 In other words,
`the flared portion must be sufficient to prevent errant release of a link,
`thereby to achieve the purpose of the ’420 patent, that is, the forming
`of Brunnian links. We give terms their broadest reasonable
`
`
`8 Unlike in SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC, 825 F.3d 1341 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016), Petitioner in the present proceeding did, in fact, have notice of
`this construction. See, e.g., PO Resp. 2–4 (arguing our initial construction of
`this claim phrase was unreasonably broad, and proposing an alternative
`similar to the construction adopted in this Decision); Pet. Reply 4–7
`(responding to Patent Owner’s argument on that point).
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01883
`Patent 8,684,420 B2
`
`interpretation, and given the particular facts presented here, it would
`be unreasonable to read the claim term that requires “a flared portion
`for holding a link in place” to embrace a portion incapable of holding a
`link in place and, thus, incapable of forming Brunnian links.
`D. Anticipation by La Croix
`Petitioner asserts that claim 3 is anticipated by La Croix. Pet. 44–49.
`Patent Owner argues that La Croix does not disclose certain features recited
`in claim 3. PO Resp. 7–9; Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 11–13, 21, 23–41. We have
`reviewed the entire record before us, including the parties’ contentions and
`supporting evidence presented during this trial. For the reasons explained
`below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a
`preponderance of the evidence, that claim 3 is unpatentable as anticipated by
`La Croix.
`Petitioner relies on board 1 of La Croix as disclosing the base recited
`in claim 1. Pet. 45–46 (citing Ex. 1012, 1:5–11, 1:35–38, Fig. 1; Ex. 1015
`¶ 59). Petitioner further relies on cotter pins 3 as disclosing the claimed
`plurality of pins. Id. at 44, 46–48 (citing Ex. 1012, 1:44–47, Figs. 1, 2;
`Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 59–60). According to Petitioner, the cotter pins of La Croix
`include round head 7, thus disclosing a “top portion for holding a link in a
`desired orientation,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 45, 47 (citing Ex. 1012,
`Fig. 3; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 59–60). Petitioner further asserts that the enlarged top
`portion of each cotter pin 3 is “flared,” as recited in claim 3. Pet. 48–49
`(citing Ex. 1012, Fig. 3; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 62–63). Petitioner relies on the two leg
`portions 5 and eyelet 6 as disclosing the claimed “opening on at least one
`side” of the pins. Pet. 45, 47–48 (citing Ex. 1012, Fig. 3; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 59–
`60). Finally, Petitioner points to Figures 1 and 2 of La Croix as disclosing
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01883
`Patent 8,684,420 B2
`
`that cotter pins 3 are arranged in “rows of offset pins spaced apart and
`extending upward from the base.” Pet. 44–45 (citing Ex. 1012, 1:43–44,
`Figs. 1, 2).
`Patent Owner argues that La Croix is missing several features of
`claim 3. See PO Resp. 7–9; Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 11–13, 21, 23–41. We focus our
`discussion on Patent Owner’s assertions regarding the claimed “top portion
`[of each pin

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket