Paper 1
`Filed: March 29, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`GRACO CHILDREN’S PRODUCTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`Case IPR2016-00810
`Patent D570,621
`_________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00810
`
`Petition for IPR of Patent D570,621
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES — 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B) ....................................... 2 
`A. Real Parties in Interest .................................................................................... 2 
`B.  Related Matters ............................................................................................... 3 
`C.  Designation of Petitioner’s Counsel ............................................................... 3 
`D. Service Information ........................................................................................ 3 
`III.  FEE FOR IPR REQUEST — 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(A) ....................................... 3 
`IV.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 3 
`V. 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE .......................................................... 4 
`VI.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’621 PATENT ............................................................ 5 
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9 
`A. Legal Standard For Claim Construction Of A Design Patent ........................ 9 
`B.  Claim Construction Of The ’621 Patent ....................................................... 11 
`VIII.  APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................ 14 
`A. Anticipation .................................................................................................. 14 
`B.  Obviousness .................................................................................................. 15 
`EXPLANATION
`OF
`THE
`GROUNDS
`FOR
`IX.  DETAILED
`UNPATENTABILITY .................................................................................. 18 
`A. Ground 1 – The Claim Is Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) By
`Celestina-Krevh ............................................................................................ 18 
`1.  The play yard legs of Celestina-Krevh are substantially similar to the
`’621 Patent’s claimed design .................................................................... 19 
`2.  Any differences between Celestina-Krevh and the ’621 Patent’s claimed
`design are trivial ....................................................................................... 22 
`3.  Celestina-Krevh does not disclose a fabric covering on the legs ............. 24 
`4.  A U.S. District Court found that Celestina-Krevh discloses a curved play
`yard leg regardless of covering ................................................................ 26 
`5.  Celestina-Krevh still discloses contours of curved play yard legs even if
`covered by fabric and anticipates the ’621 Patent claim .......................... 27 
`i
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00810
`
`Petition for IPR of Patent D570,621
`
`B.  Ground 2 – The Claim Is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over Celestina-
`Krevh In View Of Gottlieb ........................................................................... 28 
`C.  Ground 3 – The Claim Is Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) By Chen
`’393 ............................................................................................................ 30 
`1.  Chen ’393 anticipates the ’621 Patent claim ............................................ 30 
`2.  The inventors failed to show an earlier invention date than Chen ’393 .. 35 
`a.  Applicable legal standards .................................................................. 36 
`b.  The alleged facts set forth in the Rule 1.131 Declaration are
`insufficient ........................................................................................... 38 
`c.  The Patent Owner failed to establish conception ................................ 40 
`d.  The Patent Owner failed to establish reduction to practice ................ 42 
`D. Ground 4 – The Claim Is Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) By Chen
`’683 ............................................................................................................ 45 
`1.  The play yard legs of Chen ’683 are substantially similar to the ’621
`Patent’s claimed design ............................................................................ 45 
`2.  Any differences between Chen ’683 and the ’621 Patent’s claimed design
`are trivial ................................................................................................... 49 
`E.  Ground 5 – The Claim Is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over Chen
`’683 ............................................................................................................ 49 
`F.  Ground 6 – The Claim Is Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) By The
`Fold ‘N Go Manual ....................................................................................... 51 
`G. Ground 7 – The Claim Is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over The Fold
`‘N Go Manual ............................................................................................... 55 
`H. Ground 8 – The Claim Is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over The Fold
`‘N Go Manual In View Of Gottlieb ............................................................. 56 
`I.  Ground 9 – The Claim Is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over Celestina-
`Krevh In View Of Hartenstine ...................................................................... 57 
`J.  Ground 10 – The Claim Is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over The
`Fold ‘N Go Manual In View Of Hartenstine ................................................ 59 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60 
`
`
`X. 
`
`ii
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00810
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Petition for IPR of Patent D570,621
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ABB Inc. v. Roy-G-Biv Corp.,
` Cases IPR2013-00062 & 00282, Final Decision,
` Paper No. 84 (PTAB Apr. 11, 2014) ............................................................ 38
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd.,
` 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................... 16, 29, 57, 60
`
`Bonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found.,
` 402 U.S. 313 (1971) ...................................................................................... 26
`
`Caterpillar, Inc. v. Miller International, Ltd.,
` Case IPR2015-00416, Decision to Institute Inter Partes Review,
` Paper No. 4 (PTAB July 9, 2015) ................................................................. 10
`
`Contessa Food Prods., Inc. v. Conagra, Inc.,
` 282 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..................................................................... 10
`
`Cooper v. Goldfarb,
` 240 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................... 38
`
`Cordance Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
` 658 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................... 36
`
`Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
` 598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................... 10, 15
`
`Dieterich v. Leaf,
` 89 F.3d 226 (C.C.P.A. 1937) ........................................................................ 37
`
`Dobson v. Dornan,
` 118 U.S. 10 (1886) ........................................................................................ 10
`
`Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne,
` 256 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2001)............................................................... 15, 27
`
`
` 
`
`iii
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00810
`
`Petition for IPR of Patent D570,621 
`
`Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co.,
` 101 F.3d 100 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................... 50
`
`Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.,
` 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) ................................................ 10, 15
`
`Fitzgerald v. Arbib,
` 268 F.2d 763 (C.C.P.A. 1959) ...................................................................... 37
`
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
` Case IPR2012-00001, Final Decision,
` Paper No. 59 (PTAB Nov. 13, 2013) ............................................................ 37
`
`Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp.,
` 220 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..................................................................... 38
`
`Geo. M. Martin Co. v. All. Mach. Sys. Int’l LLC,
` 618 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................... 34
`
`Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White,
` 81 U.S. 511 (1871) ............................................................................ 15, 27, 54
`
`High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.,
` 730 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................... 16, 17, 55, 56
`
`In re Blum,
` 374 F.2d 904 (C.C.P.A. 1967) ...................................................................... 12
`
`In re Carter,
` 673 F.2d 1378 (C.C.P.A. 1982) .................................................................... 50
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
` 778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015)....................................................................... 9
`
`In re Garner,
` 508 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................... 41
`
`In re Haruna,
` 249 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................... 16
`
`
` 
`
`iv 
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00810
`
`Petition for IPR of Patent D570,621 
`
`In re Harvey,
` 12 F.3d 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1993)....................................................................... 38
`
`In re Jolley,
` 308 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..................................................................... 36
`
`In re LAMB,
` 286 F.2d 610 (C.C.P.A. 1961) ...................................................................... 18
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
` 654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011)............................................................... 36, 37
`
`In re Rosen,
` 673 F.2d 388 (C.C.P.A. 1982) ...................................................................... 16
`
`In re Steed,
` 802 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................... 37
`
`In re Stevens,
` 173 F.2d 1015 (C.C.P.A. 1949) .............................................................. 50, 51
`
`Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp.,
` 589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009).............................................................. passim
`
`Iron Dome LLC v. E-Watch, Inc.,
` Case IPR2014-00439, Decision to Institute,
` Paper No. 16 (PTAB Aug. 4, 2014) .............................................................. 44
`
`Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp.,
` 728 F.2d 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984)..................................................................... 16
`
`Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc.,
` 79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................... 36
`
`MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP,
` 747 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014).............................................................. passim
`
`Price v. Symsek,
` 988 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1993)............................................................... 37, 38
`
`
` 
`
`v 
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00810
`
`Petition for IPR of Patent D570,621 
`
`Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.,
` 597 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................... 10
`
`Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc.,
` 339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................... 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 171 .................................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`FEDERAL REGULATIONS
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.131 ........................................................................................... 6, 36
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.152 ............................................................................................... 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ................................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ............................................................................................... 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ........................................................................................... 3, 4
`
`
`
` 
`
`vi 
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00810
`
`Petition for IPR of Patent D570,621
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`No.
`1001 U.S. Design Patent No. D570,621 (the challenged patent)
`1002 Declaration of Robert John Anders, IDSA, in Support of Petition for
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. D570,621
`1003 U.S. Design Patent No. D494,393 to Chen
`1004
`Fold ‘N Go élan Deluxe Care Center Instruction Manual, Century
`Products
`1005 U.S. Design Patent No. D448,218 to Celestina-Krevh
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 3,187,352 to Gottlieb
`1007 U.S. Design Patent No. D581,683 to Chen
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,510,570 to Hartenstine
`1009
`Prosecution File History for U.S. Design Patent No. D570,621
`1010
`Rule 131 Declaration of Damon Oliver Casati Troutman and Edward
`B. Bretschger and Exhibits A-F thereto
`dictionary.com definition of “exposed”
`Prosecution File History for U.S. Design Patent No. D604,970
`In re Troutman et al., Appeal No. 2009-005005, Application No.
`29/244,885 (BPAI Sept. 23, 2009)
`1014 U.S. Design Patent No. D604,970 to Troutman
`1015 Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt.
`No. 82, Graco Children’s Products Inc. v. Baby Trend, Inc., No.
`2:10-cv-05897-JST (C.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2011)
`1016 Google search results for “Century Fold N Go elan Deluxe Care
`Center”
`
`1011
`1012
`1013
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00810
`
`Petition for IPR of Patent D570,621
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Graco Children’s Products Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Graco”) requests inter
`
`partes review of the claim of U.S. Design Patent No. D570,621 (the “’621 Patent”)
`
`(Ex. 1001), assigned on its face to Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. (“Patent Owner” or
`
`“Kolcraft”). This Petition shows by a preponderance of the evidence, and
`
`supported by the accompanying Declaration of Robert John Anders (Ex. 1002),
`
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail on invalidating the
`
`’621 Patent based on prior art that anticipates or renders obvious the ’621 Patent
`
`claim. The’621 Patent should therefore be found unpatentable and cancelled.
`
`The ’621 Patent is a design patent directed to the ornamental design for
`
`“Exposed Legs for a Play Yard.” The
`
`’621 Patent contains a single claim
`
`and six figures depicting a single
`
`embodiment. The figures of the ’621
`
`Patent show a play yard with what
`
`appear to be curved legs that bow
`
`outward. As shown in Figure 1, the
`
`’621 Patent – Figure 1
`curved legs are depicted in solid lines, and thus are the only features claimed.
`
`Fatal to the ’621 Patent claim, however, is the fact that none of the elements
`
`of the claimed design are new. Play yards with exposed legs, for example, have
`
`1
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00810
`
`Petition for IPR of Patent D570,621
`
`been around for decades and are not
`
`new. Even more, play yards with curved
`
`legs had been well-known for many
`
`years prior to the priority date of the
`
`’621 Patent. For example, U.S. Design
`
`Patent No. D494,393 to Chen (“Chen
`
`’393”) (Ex. 1003) disclosed designs
`
`Fig. 1 – Chen ’393
`nearly identical to the one claimed in the ’621 Patent. The Patent Owner did not
`
`differentiate Chen ’393 during prosecution, but instead swore behind Chen ’393
`
`with an unsupported Rule 1.131 Declaration.
`
`In 2000, four years prior to the filing of the ’621 Patent, Century Products
`
`(which was later acquired by Petitioner’s parent company) began to market and
`
`sell a play yard with curved legs. (Ex. 1004.) Also as early as 2000, Graco filed a
`
`U.S. design application, which later issued in 2001, showing a play yard with
`
`curved legs with “exposed” contours. (Ex. 1005.)
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES — 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)
`
`A. Real Parties in Interest
`
`Graco Children’s Products Inc. and its parent, Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., are
`
`real parties-in-interest.
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00810
`
`Petition for IPR of Patent D570,621
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The Patent Owner has sued the Petitioner, alleging infringement of, inter
`
`alia, the ’621 Patent. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. v. Graco Children’s Products Inc.,
`
`No. 1:15-cv-07950 (N.D. Ill.).
`
`C. Designation of Petitioner’s Counsel
`
`Petitioner identifies the following lead and backup counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Gregory J. Carlin (Reg. No. 45,607)
`Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC
`999 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1300
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Tel: (404) 645-7700
`Fax: (404) 645-7707
`E-mail: gcarlin@mcciplaw.com;
`litdocketing@mcciplaw.com
`
`Backup Counsel
`Walter Hill Levie III (Reg. No. 72,016)
`John W. Harbin (pro hac vice to be filed)
`Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC
`999 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1300
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Tel: (404) 645-7700
`Fax: (404) 645-7707
`E-mail: tlevie@mcciplaw.com;
`jharbin@mcciplaw.com
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service in this proceeding via (1) filing
`
`documents in the Patent Review Processing System (“PRPS”) or (2) emailing the
`
`documents to the above-designated counsel (when not filed in PRPS).
`
`III. FEE FOR IPR REQUEST — 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(A)
`
`The required fee of $23,000 is included with this Petition. The Director is
`
`authorized to charge any additional fees required to Deposit Account No. 50-5226.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’621 Patent is
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00810
`
`Petition for IPR of Patent D570,621
`
`available for inter partes review and that it is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting inter partes review challenging the ’621 Patent claim on the grounds
`
`identified in this Petition. This Petition is being filed within one year of Petitioner
`
`being served with a complaint for patent infringement.
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), Petitioner requests inter partes review of
`
`the sole claim of the ’621 Patent based on the following prior art:
`
`Exhibit
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1003
`
`1007
`
`1004
`
`Description
`U.S. Design Patent No. D448,218
`to Celestina-Krevh (“Celestina-Krevh”)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,187,352
`to Gottlieb (“Gottlieb”)
`U.S. Design Patent No. D494,393
`to Chen (“Chen ’393”)
`U.S. Design Patent No. D581,683
`to Chen (“Chen ’683”)
`Fold ‘N Go élan Deluxe Care Center
`Instruction Manual, Century Products
`(“Fold ‘N Go Manual”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,510,570
`to Hartenstine et al. (“Hartenstine”)
`
`1008
`
`Section VII(B), infra, explains how the claim should be construed under the
`
`Filing
`Date
`May 5,
`2000
`June 7,
`1962
`Jan. 7,
`2004
`Nov. 10,
`2003
`
`N/A
`
`May 8,
`2001
`
`Publication/
`Issue Date
`Sept. 25,
`2001
`June 8,
`1965
`Aug. 17,
`2004
`Dec. 2,
`2008
`Aug. 13,
`2003
`Jan. 28,
`2003
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground No.
`1
`2
`
`Description
`Statutory Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Anticipated by Celestina-Krevh
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Obvious over Celestina-Krevh in view
`of Gottlieb
`4
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00810
`
`Petition for IPR of Patent D570,621
`
`Ground No.
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Description
`Statutory Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Anticipated by Chen ’393
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Anticipated by Chen ’683
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Obvious over Chen ’683
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Anticipated by the Fold ‘N Go Manual
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Obvious over the Fold ‘N Go Manual
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Obvious over the Fold ‘N Go Manual in
`view of Gottlieb
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Obvious over Celestina-Krevh in view
`of Hartenstine
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Obvious over the Fold ‘N Go Manual in
`view of Hartenstine
`
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’621 PATENT
`
`The ’621 Patent, entitled “Exposed Legs for a Play Yard,” was filed on
`
`December 15, 2005,1 as U.S. Patent Application No. 29/244,886 (the “’886
`
`Application”). The ’886 Application claimed priority to U.S. Patent Application
`
`29/216,591, filed on November 5, 2004. The ’886 Application contained a single
`
`claim and six figures. The figures were directed to an ornamental design for
`
`exposed legs for a play yard. (Ex. 1001; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 29-30.)
`
`In a non-final Office Action, the Office objected to “the drawing due to an
`
`inconsistency therein. The bottom-most portions of the leg members in [F]igure 1
`
`show a slight flare outward that is not shown in the other views. Hence a new
`
`drawing is now required wherein [F]igure 1 has been made consistent with the
`
`
`1 Because the parent application for the ’621 Patent was filed prior to the effective
`
`date of the America Invents Act (“AIA”), the pre-AIA statutes apply here.
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00810
`
`Petition for IPR of Patent D570,621
`
`other views.” (Ex. 1009, 3/2/06 NFOA at
`
`2; Ex. 1002, ¶ 31.) The Office included
`
`an annotated version of Figure 1, as
`
`shown. (Ex. 1009, 3/2/06 NFOA.) The
`
`Office also rejected the claim under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b) as “clearly anticipated by Chen 6,954,949 . . . . The shape and
`
`appearance of Chen 6,954,949 is identical in all material respects to that of the
`
`claimed design.” (Id. at 2.)
`
`
`
`Applicants did not pursue the Office’s direction to modify Figure 1 in
`
`response to the non-final Office Action. Rather, they submitted amended Figures
`
`2-5 “to conform to Figure 1.”2 (Ex. 1009, 6/2/2006 Response at 4.) Applicants also
`
`submitted a declaration pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 (hereinafter “Rule 1.131
`
`Declaration”) to address the Office’s rejection of the claim as anticipated by Chen,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,954,949 (“Chen ’949”). (Ex. 1010.)
`
`
`
`In a subsequent non-final Office Action, the Office withdrew the rejection
`
`
`2 Although not the proper subject of an inter partes review, and not before the
`
`Board, Petitioner submits that the ’621 Patent is also nonenabling and indefinite
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and (b). Petitioner reserves its rights to challenge the
`
`Patent Owner’s amendment as, among other things, introducing new matter.
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00810
`
`Petition for IPR of Patent D570,621
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), but set forth a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
`
`alleging that the claim is unpatentable over Celestina-Krevh in view of Gottlieb or
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,162,865 to Tigrett (“Tigrett”). (Ex. 1009, 6/27/06 NFOA at 2.)
`
`The Office specifically found that “[t]he appearance of the play yard legs claimed
`
`herein is strikingly similar to the Celestina-Krevh play yard legs, the essential
`
`difference being simply that the legs are exposed. Both Gottlieb and Tigrett show
`
`the commonplace exposed legs on a play yard.” (Id.) The Office thus concluded
`
`that “it would have been obvious to remove the cover of the Celestina-Krevh to
`
`show the exposed legs as shown by either Gottlieb or Tigrett.” (Id.)
`
`
`
`In response, and apparently relying on the Office’s (we believe mistaken)
`
`assumption that “the legs of Celestina-Krevh design are not exposed,” Applicants
`
`argued that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would never use Gottlieb or Tigrett
`
`to modify Celestina-Krevh” because doing so would allegedly “eliminate the
`
`claimed invention of Celestina-Krevh.” (Id. 11/30/06 Response at 2, 4.)
`
`The Office did not accept Applicants’ argument. In a final Office Action, the
`
`Office again rejected the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
`
`Celestina-Krevh in view of Gottlieb or Tigrett. (Id. 1/26/07 final OA at 2.) “Again
`
`it is held that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time the article was made to simply remove the cover of Celestina-Krevh to
`
`show the exposed legs as taught by either Gottlieb or Tigrett.” (Id.)
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00810
`
`Petition for IPR of Patent D570,621
`
`Applicants thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal from the Examiner to the
`
`Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“BPAI”) (id. 4/16/07 Notice of
`
`Appeal), and filed an Appeal Brief on August 16, 2007. (Id.) Upon filing of
`
`Applicants’ Appeal Brief, prosecution of the ’886 Application was reopened by the
`
`Examiner. (Id. 11/20/07 NFOA at 2.) In a non-final Office Action, the Office
`
`rejected the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Chen ’393,
`
`concluding that “[t]he shape and appearance of the play yard legs of [Chen ’393]
`
`are identical in all material respects to that of the claimed design[.]” (Id.)
`
`In response, Applicants argued that, based on the Rule 131 Declarations that
`
`had been previously submitted, Chen ’393 is not prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(a). (Id. 2/18/08 Response at 2.) The ’886 Application was thereafter allowed
`
`on April 11, 2008. (Id.) The ’621 Patent issued on June 10, 2008. (Id.)
`
`The ’621 Patent contains the following figure descriptions and figures:
`
`
`Figure 1 – “[A] perspective view of
`exposed legs for a play yard.”
`(Ex. 1001 at description of Fig. 1.)
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 – “[A] right side view of the
`design of FIG. 1.”
`(Id. at description of Fig. 2.)
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00810
`
`Petition for IPR of Patent D570,621
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 – “[A] left side view of the
`design of FIG. 1.”
`(Id. at description of Fig. 3.)
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4 – “[A] front view of the
`design of FIG. 1.”
`(Id. at description of Fig. 4.)
`
`
`
`
`Figure 5 – “[A] rear view of the design
`of FIG. 1[.]”
`(Id. at description of Fig. 5.)
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6 – “[A] top view of the design
`of FIG. 1.”
`(Id. at description of Fig. 6.)
`
`
`
`
`The description further provides that “[t]here is no fabric covering the exposed legs
`
`shown in any of FIGS. 1-6. The features shown in broken lines are for illustrative
`
`purposes only and do not form part of the claimed design.” (Id. at description.)
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. Legal Standard For Claim Construction Of A Design Patent
`
`A claim subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271,
`9
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00810
`
`Petition for IPR of Patent D570,621
`
`1279-81 (Fed. Cir. 2015). With respect to design patents, it is well-settled that a
`
`design is represented better by an illustration than a description. Egyptian Goddess,
`
`Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 679 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) (citing Dobson v.
`
`Dornan, 118 U.S. 10, 14 (1886)).
`
`The scope of the ’621 Patent is defined by the solid lines (as opposed to the
`
`broken or dashed lines) depicted in Figures 1-6, in conjunction with their
`
`descriptions. See, e.g., Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 680 (citing 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 1.152); see also Contessa Food Prods., Inc. v. Conagra, Inc., 282 F.3d 1370,
`
`1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “[D]esign patents are typically claimed according to their
`
`drawings, and claim construction must be adapted to a pictorial setting.”
`
`Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., 597 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing
`
`Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1302-03 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). But,
`
`the Federal Circuit has said that it may also be “helpful to point out . . . various
`
`features of the claimed design as they relate to . . . the prior art.” Egyptian
`
`Goddess, 543 F.3d at 680; see also Caterpillar, Inc. v. Miller International, Ltd.,
`
`Case IPR2015-00416, Decision to Institute Inter Partes Review, Paper No. 4 at 5-6
`
`(PTAB July 9, 2015) (agreeing with Petitioner’s proposed construction and finding
`
`“it helpful to describe verbally certain features of the claim”). As a result,
`
`Petitioner proposes a claim construction in view of the broadest reasonable
`
`construction, based on the solid lines of the ’621 Patent figures with additional
`
`10
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00810
`
`Petition for IPR of Patent D570,621
`
`descriptions of certain features of the claimed design.
`
`B. Claim Construction Of The ’621 Patent
`
`According to the specification, the ’621 Patent claims “[t]he ornamental
`
`design for exposed legs for a play yard, as shown and described.” (Ex. 1001 at
`
`claim.) The specification states that “[t]he features shown in broken lines are for
`
`illustrative purposes only and do not form part of the claimed design.” (Id. at
`
`description.) The specification further provides that “[t]here is no fabric covering
`
`the exposed legs shown in any of FIGS. 1-6.” (Id.)
`
`Although the law leans against construing figures of a design patent with
`
`words, the ’621 Patent claim includes the exposed legs as shown and described.
`
`(Id. at claim.) The descriptions are in words. Therefore, based on the broadest
`
`reasonable construction, it is appropriate and helpful to construe the terms
`
`“exposed” and “no fabric covering” with appropriate verbiage.
`
`During prosecution, the Examiner simply concluded “that the legs are
`
`exposed.” (Ex. 1009 6/26/07 NFOA at 2.) Petitioner believes that the Office failed
`
`to properly construe the ’621 Patent claim when deciding that “exposed” and “no
`
`fabric covering” means the total absence of a fabric covering from the curved legs.
`
`The ’621 Patent claim instead should be construed as “curved legs with the
`
`unconcealed outer contours shown in FIGS. 1-6.” The most dominant disclosures
`
`of the ’621 Patent are the figures showing legs in solid lines with white space
`
`11
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00810
`
`Petition for IPR of Patent D570,621
`
`between those lines. The Patent Owner made no attempt to show internal contours
`
`or shading to denote, for example, shape or form. Design patent practice provides
`
`for showing texture as surface ornamentation, material composition, and even
`
`surface appearance, such as shininess, through use of contours and/or shading.
`
`MPEP 1503.02. By using white space, the Patent Owner eschewed being limited to
`
`a particular surface appearance. See In re Blum, 374 F.2d 904, 907, n.1 (C.C.P.A.
`
`1967) (“As the drawing constitutes substantially the whole disclosure of the
`
`design, it is of utmost importance that it be so well executed both as to clarity of
`
`showing and completeness that nothing regarding the shape, configuration and
`
`surface ornamentation of the article sought to be patented is left to conjecture.”).
`
`To properly embrace the lack of features shown in the figures, then, the term
`
`“exposed” should not be restricted to any particular surface treatment, material, or
`
`covering. If “exposed” were interpreted so narrowly as to mean uncovered, the
`
`scope of the ’621 Patent claim would not capture curved legs with any type of
`
`covering – plastic or paint, for example. Instead, the Patent Owner, by use of the
`
`term “exposed,” expressed its desire to capture the very thing shown by the
`
`figures – the silhouette or outer contours of the legs.
`
`Dictionary.com has two definitions for the term “exposed” which are
`
`informative of possible constructions:
`
`1. left or being without shelter or protection:
`
`12
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00810
`
`Petition for IPR of Patent D570,621
`
`2. laid open to view; unconcealed.
`
`(Ex. 1011.) The construction argued by the Patent Owner, and adopted by the
`
`Examiner, during prosecution was number 1 – that exposed meant the absence of a
`
`fabric covering. (See Ex. 1009 6/26/07 NFOA at 2; 11/30/06 Response at 2-4.)
`
`Instead, the number 2 definition is more informative and relevant. A form-fitting
`
`covering, such as paint, a tightly-fitting fabric, or plastic coating, may protect but it
`
`doe