throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 12
`Entered: January 12, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`DAKTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OLAF SÖÖT DESIGN, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-01369
`Patent 6,520,485 B1
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Not Instituting Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314, 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.4, 42.108
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. BACKGROUND
`
`Daktronics, Inc. (“Daktronics”) filed a corrected petition (Paper 7,
`
`“Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 21, 23, 24, and 26–28
`
`(the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,520,485 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the
`
`’485 patent”). 35 U.S.C. § 311. Daktronics also relies upon expert
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01369
`Patent 6,520,485 B1
`
`testimony from Mr. William B. Gorlin (Ex. 1004). Olaf Sööt Design, LLC
`
`(“OSD”) timely filed a Preliminary Response, Paper 11 (“Prelim. Resp.”)
`
`that is supported by a declaration from Olaf Sööt (Ex. 2001). Institution of
`
`an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information
`
`presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under
`
`section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`
`petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Based on our review of
`
`the record, we conclude that Daktronics has failed to demonstrate that it is
`
`reasonably likely to prevail with respect to any of its challenges.
`
`Daktronics contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103 based on the following grounds (Pet. 14–50):
`
`References
`
`Basis Claims challenged
`
`German Patent Publication No. DE 4204153
`(Ex. 1007 with certified translation at
`Ex. 1008, “Geiss”)
`
`§ 102
`
`21, 23, 24, and 26–
`28
`
`Geiss
`
`§ 103
`
`21, 23, 24, and 26–
`28
`
`Geiss and UK Patent Application No. GB
`2296481 (Ex. 1005, “Barnet”)
`
`§ 103
`
`21, 23, 24, and 26–
`28
`
`Geiss and German Patent Publication No.
`DE 3737612 (Ex. 1009 with certified
`translation at Ex. 1010, “Bittner”)
`
`§ 103
`
`21, 23, 24, and 26–
`28
`
`Barnet and U.S. Patent No. 652,893
`(Ex. 1006, “Herdman”)
`
`§ 103
`
`27 and 28
`
`Barnet, Bittner, and Geiss
`
`§ 103
`
`21, 23, 24, and 26
`
`Barnet, Bittner, and Herdman
`
`§ 103
`
`21, 23, 24, and 26
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01369
`Patent 6,520,485 B1
`
`References
`
`Basis Claims challenged
`
`German Patent Publication No. DE
`19512899 (Ex. 1014 with certified
`translation at Ex. 1015, “Fajtak”) and U.S.
`Patent No. 1,110,248 (Ex. 1012, “Atwood”)
`
`Fajtak and Herdman
`
`All obviousness combinations referenced
`above in further view of U.S. Patent No.
`2,942,879 (Ex. 1011, “Izenour”)
`
`§ 103
`
`21, 23, 24, and 26–
`28
`
`§ 103
`
`21, 23, 24, and 26–
`28
`
`§ 103
`
`24, 26, and 28
`
`Generally, OSD contends that the Petition should be denied in its
`
`entirety. For the reasons described below, we decline to institute inter partes
`
`review of the challenged claims on any of the alleged grounds of
`
`unpatentability.
`
`B. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`The parties identified as a related proceeding the co-pending district
`
`court proceeding of Olaf Sööt Design, LLC v. Daktronics Hoist, Inc. and
`
`Daktronics, Inc., Case Number 1:15-cv-05024-RWS (S.D.N.Y.). Pet. 2–3;
`
`Paper 9, 2. The parties also identified two previously filed petitions for inter
`
`partes review involving the ’485 patent, IPR2015-00116 and -00117, for
`
`which joint motions to terminate the proceedings were granted. Pet. 2–3;
`
`Paper 9, 2.
`
`C. THE ’485 PATENT
`
`The patent describes a winch for “raising and lowering objects, in
`
`particular, objects such as theater scenic elements, suspended from fly sets,
`
`by failsafe motorized means.” Ex. 1001, 1:6–8. To aid us in describing the
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01369
`Patent 6,520,485 B1
`
`subject matter of the ’485 patent, we refer to the colorized version of
`
`Figure 1 shown below.
`
`
`
`The colorized version of Figure 1 is a side view of an exemplary
`embodiment of the claimed winch system with some internal
`structures shown in dashed lines.
`
`Winch 1 includes grooved drum 11 (green) around which cables 50
`
`wind and unwind to raise and lower objects. Id. at 3:53–55. Drum 11
`
`(green) is rotatably supported near its ends by base 30 (orange) and rotated
`
`via the combination of motor 38 and gear reducer 37 (teal). Id. at 3:55–59.
`
`Cables 50 are guided from grooved drum 11 to those objects over sheaves 47
`
`that are mounted on carriage 40 (violet). Id. at 4:7–11. A hub (blue) is non-
`
`rotatably mounted on one end of drum 11 (green) and supported by bearing
`
`39 (yellow) so that it can rotate freely within vertical member 31 (orange)
`
`when drum 11 (green) rotates. The distal end of the hub (blue) carries an
`
`internally threaded nut (blue) that mates with screw 51 (pink), which is non-
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01369
`Patent 6,520,485 B1
`
`rotatably secured to vertical member 41B (violet) of frame 41 (violet).
`
`Accordingly, when drum 11 (green) and its hub (blue) rotates, the nut (blue)
`
`within the hub (blue) engages the threads on screw 51 (pink), which causes
`
`carriage 40 (violet) and sheaves 47 (violet) to slide laterally relative to drum
`
`11 (green) and base 30 (orange). Because the threads on screw 51 (pink)
`
`and the grooves on drum 11 (green) have the same pitch, carriage 40 moves
`
`laterally at the same rate at which cables 50 advance in the grooves on drum
`
`11 to maintain a straight path for each cable 50 from its sheave 47 to drum
`
`11. Id. at 4:55–60. As carriage 40 (violet) slides to the left from the position
`
`shown in Figure 1, the distal end of screw 51 (pink) moves through the hub
`
`(blue) into the hollow cavity within drum 11 (green).
`
`Carriage 40 is thus slidably mounted
`
`to base 30. Slides 45 (yellow) are secured
`
`to carriage 40 (violet) and guide the sliding
`
`of carriage 40 (violet) with respect to base
`
`30 (orange) and drum 11 (green). Friction
`
`between slides 45 (yellow) and base 30
`
`(orange) is reduced by bearings 35A, 35B
`
`(red), which are illustrated in the colorized
`
`version of Figure 3 reproduced at right,
`
`which is a cross section taken along line
`
`3A—3A of Figure 1. The colorized figure
`
`illustrates the relationships among slides 45
`
`(yellow), cylindrical linear bearing 35A
`
`(red), and flat linear bearing 35B (red).
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01369
`Patent 6,520,485 B1
`
`Claims 21 and 27 are the independent claims among the challenged
`
`claims. Claims 23, 24, and 26 depend ultimately from claim 21, id. at 15:6–
`
`28, and claim 28 depends from claim 27, id. at 16:1–4. Claim 21, which is
`
`illustrative, recites:
`
`21. A motorized fly system winch, drum and carriage
`combination for raising and lowering scenery, comprising:
`
`a) a support carriage and plural cable-guiding devices
`mounted on said carriage,
`
`b) a base member having first and second end portions,
`
`c) an elongated hollow drum having cable grooves and
`having a longitudinal axis and rotatably mounted on the
`base member and plural cables for simultaneously
`winding and unwinding the cables on or off the drum
`grooves when the drum is rotated, said cables passing
`from the outside of the drum over, respectively, the
`cable-guiding devices for supporting scenery such that
`rotation of the drum causes the scenery to move up and
`down,
`
`d) first means for slideably mounting the base member to
`the carriage,
`
`e) said drum having at a first end a hollow hub rotatably
`journalled at the first end portion of the base member,
`
`f) second means for rotating the drum relative to the base
`member such that the base member with its drum and
`the carriage can move with respect to each other in
`synchronism with the rotation of the drum to control
`the cable runs to the plural cable-guiding devices,
`respectively,
`
`g) said second means comprising an elongated screw
`having a first end non-rotatably mounted to the carriage
`and a second end threadingly engaging a like threaded
`member non-rotatably connected to the drum and
`axially aligned with the hollow hub and the hollow
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01369
`Patent 6,520,485 B1
`
`drum, said screw extending mainly outside of the
`hollow drum when the cables are wound up on or
`unwound from the drum and the scenery is in its
`respective up or down position,
`
`h) said hollow hub and hollow drum being sized such that
`the screw can move into the hollow hub to allow the
`hollow drum to receive the screw as the cables unwind
`from or wind up on the drum as the scenery moves to
`its respective down or up position.
`
`Id. at 14:34–15:5.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`“A claim in an unexpired patent that will not expire before a final
`
`written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131,
`
`2144–46 (2016) (affirming that USPTO has statutory authority to construe
`
`claims according to Rule 42.100(b)). When applying that standard, we
`
`interpret the claim language as it would be understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in light of the specification. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603
`
`F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, we 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 skill in the art in
`
`question.’”). Only terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and
`
`then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs.,
`
`Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01369
`Patent 6,520,485 B1
`
`Daktronics proposes interpretations for first, second, and third means,
`
`which the parties agree are recited in means-plus-function format under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Pet. 8–9; Prelim. Resp. 17–19. OSD disputes
`
`Daktronics’ proposed interpretation of the “second means,” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 18–19, but accepts Daktronics’ proposed interpretations of the “first
`
`means,” id. at 17, and “third means,” id. at 19. OSD also proposes
`
`interpretations of “base member,” id. at 16–17, and “hollow hub,” id. at 19–
`
`20.
`
`We do not consider it necessary to construe any terms other than the
`
`“first means for slideably mounting the base member to the carriage,” which
`
`is recited in independent claims 21 and 27 and, thus, all claims at issue. We
`
`begin with the statutory framework in 35 U.S.C. § 112 for interpreting an
`
`element in a claim written in a means-plus-function form, which reads:
`
`An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed
`as a means or step for performing a specified function without
`the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and
`such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding
`structure, material, or acts described in the specification and
`equivalents thereof.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.1
`
`The function performed by the “first means” is “slideably mounting
`
`the base member to the carriage.” The Specification describes the structures
`
`that perform this function as follows:
`
`
`1 Section 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) re-
`designated 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶¶ 1, 2, and 6 as 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a), (b),
`and (f). Leahy–Smith America Invents Act, PL 112-29, September 16, 2011,
`125 Stat 284, 296 (2011). Because the filing date of the application leading
`to the issuance of the ’485 patent predates September 16, 2012 (effective
`date), we will refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01369
`Patent 6,520,485 B1
`
`The carriage 40 is slideably connected to base 30 through slides
`45, which are rigidly fastened to the frame 41. The slides 45
`engage linear bearings 35A and 35B, mounted into the top
`portions of the base 30 vertical members 31 and 32.
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:48–52.
`
`The Specification further describes bearings 35A, 35B as follows,
`
`with references to the colorized version of Figure 3 that is a cross section
`
`view taken along line 3A—3A of Figure 1 and is reproduced below right:
`
`A cylindrical linear bearing 35A,
`[red] which
`is
`self-aligning,
`engages a cylindrical portion of
`slide 45 [yellow]. A flat linear
`bearing 35B [red] engages a fiat
`portion of slide 45 [yellow]. The
`entire carriage 40 [violet] or base
`30 [orange] (depending on the
`winch 1 configuration) can be
`slideably supported, vertically and
`horizontally, by
`the
`two self-
`aligning linear bearings 35A [red]
`at opposite ends and vertically by
`the one fiat linear bearing 35B [red]
`at one of the ends. . . . Since the flat
`linear bearing 35B [red] is free to
`move horizontally in FIG. 3, in a
`direction perpendicular to its travel
`(in and out of the plane of the
`drawing of FIG. 3), its use, together
`with
`the
`two
`self-aligning
`cylindrical linear bearings 35A [red], eliminates the need for
`precise alignment of slides 45 [yellow]. This self-alignment
`feature derives from the resultant 3-point support of the carriage,
`which causes the carriage to “float” horizontally and also have a
`small amount of vertical movement. This is an important feature
`of the invention. If a second flat linear bearing 35B [red] is used
`at the base overspeed brake end member 31, its purpose would
`be secondary safety and it can be fitted over slide 45 with loose
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01369
`Patent 6,520,485 B1
`
`tolerances. Stated another way, the cylindrical linear bearing
`35A [red] supports the carriage or drum in all directions
`perpendicular to the drum axis (but not parallel to the drum axis),
`whereas the flat linear bearing 35B [red] supports the carriage or
`drum in only one direction perpendicular to the drum axis. So,
`for example, when the drum is arranged horizontally, the support
`is in the vertical direction, and when the drum is arranged
`vertically, the support is in the horizontal direction.
`
`Id. at 6:13–46 (with added references to the colors used in the colorized
`
`version of Figure 3).
`
`Based on our review of these portions of the Specification, we
`
`determine that the Specification describes two embodiments of the “first
`
`means.” One embodiment includes two slides 45 mounted to frame 41 at
`
`spaced apart locations as shown in Figure 1, a cylindrical linear bearing 35A
`
`to mate with each of the two slides 45, and one flat linear bearing 35B that
`
`mates with slide 45 closest to the non-driven end of drum 11, see id.
`
`at Fig. 3. The second embodiment further includes a second flat linear
`
`bearing 35B that mates with slide 45 mounted closest to the driven end of
`
`drum 11. The scope of the “first means” encompasses not only these two
`
`embodiments but also any equivalents to those embodiments. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, ¶ 6.
`
`B. THE CHALLENGES TO THE CLAIMS
`
`Daktronics challenges the patentability of claims 21, 23, 24, and 26–
`
`28 on the grounds that the claims are either anticipated or obvious in light of
`
`various combinations of seven prior art references including: Geiss, Barnet,
`
`Bittner, Herdman, Fajtak, Atwood, and Izenour. Pet. 15–50.
`
`“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
`
`the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
`
`art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01369
`Patent 6,520,485 B1
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1987). The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex
`
`Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), reaffirmed the framework for determining
`
`obviousness as set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
`
`The KSR Court summarized the four factual inquiries set forth in Graham
`
`that we apply in determining whether a claim is reasonably likely to be
`
`unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
`
`(1) determining the scope and content of the prior art, (2) ascertaining the
`
`differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, (3) resolving the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) considering objective
`
`evidence indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 406.
`
`With these standards in mind, we address Daktronics’ challenges below.
`
`1. Standards for a Petition
`
`A petitioner for inter partes review must identify “in writing and with
`
`particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to
`
`each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the
`
`challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). The petition must also
`
`“specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or
`
`printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). When a
`
`petition fails to meet these standards, the petitioner fails to establish a
`
`reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable, and an inter
`
`partes review may not be instituted. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`2. The Alleged Teaching of the “First Means” by the Prior Art
`
`Among the seven prior art references forming the basis of Daktronics’
`
`challenges to the claims, Daktronics contends that each of Geiss, Barnet,
`
`Bittner, and Fajtak describes the “first means for slideably mounting the base
`
`member to the carriage.” Pet. 16–17, 19, 31, and 42–43.
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01369
`Patent 6,520,485 B1
`
`As explained in Part II.A above, the Specification of the ’485 patent
`
`describes two embodiments of the “first means.” One embodiment includes
`
`two slides 45 mounted to frame 41 at spaced apart locations as shown in
`
`Figure 1, a cylindrical linear bearing 35A to mate with each of the two slides
`
`45, and one flat linear bearing 35B that mates with slide 45 closest to the
`
`non-driven end of drum 11, see id. at Fig. 3. The second embodiment
`
`further includes a second flat linear bearing 35B that mates with slide 45
`
`mounted closest to the driven end of drum 11. The scope of the “first
`
`means,” which is recited in all challenged claims, encompasses these two
`
`embodiments and their respective equivalents. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`Mr. Gorlin testifies regarding his understanding of scope of means-
`
`plus-function elements of patent claims as follows: “it is my understanding
`
`that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a ‘means-or-step-plus-function’
`
`claim term is the structure, material or act described in the specification as
`
`performing the entire claimed function and equivalents to the disclosed
`
`structure, material or act.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 33. Thus, he, and Daktronics by
`
`implication, correctly recognize that a party may demonstrate that the prior
`
`art teaches a means-plus-function element by relying upon evidence that the
`
`prior art teaches either the same structure shown in the patent or an
`
`equivalent structure. Nevertheless, neither Mr. Gorlin nor Daktronics
`
`addresses whether any of the structures of Geiss, Barnet, Bittner, and Fajtak
`
`allegedly correlating to the “first means” constitute equivalents to the
`
`structures described in the ’485 patent. Without such evidence, Daktronics’
`
`likelihood of successfully demonstrating that the prior art discloses the
`
`claimed “first means” necessarily rests upon whether any of the prior art
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01369
`Patent 6,520,485 B1
`
`describes the same structures for “slideably mounting” that are set forth in
`
`the Specification of the ’485 patent.
`
`For the reasons expressed below, we conclude that Daktronics has
`
`failed to demonstrate that any of Geiss, Barnet, Bittner, and Fajtak disclose
`
`the same structures that the ’485 patent describes for “slideably mounting
`
`the base member to the carriage.” We also conclude that Daktronics has
`
`failed to proffer evidence that the prior art structures it identified as
`
`“slideably mounting the base member to the carriage” are equivalent to the
`
`structures described in the ’485 patent. Without such evidence, the Petition
`
`does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Daktronics would prevail in
`
`demonstrating that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`a) Geiss
`
`Daktronics contends that Geiss describes the “first means” in the form
`
`of a “sliding seat” citing testimony from Mr. Gorlin, id. at 16–17 (citing
`
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 52, 93), and portions of Geiss itself, id. at 42–43 (citing
`
`Ex. 1008, 6:3–4 (sic, 4:3–4)). Mr. Gorlin testifies that “Geiss teaches that
`
`the shaft 18 (which corresponds to the base member of Claim 27) is
`
`‘connected in the sliding seat to the shaft of a drive unit.’” Ex. 1004 ¶ 93
`
`(quoting Ex. 1004, 6:3–4 (sic, 4:3–4)). Daktronics identifies the shaft 18 of
`
`Geiss as the claimed “base member” and frame 16 of Geiss as the
`
`“carriage.” Pet. 16.
`
`Even if we were to accept that Daktronics correctly identifies the
`
`unnumbered structure shown at the bottom of Geiss’s Figure 1 as a “sliding
`
`seat,” neither Geiss nor Daktronics explains how this “sliding seat” slideably
`
`mounts shaft 18 (the alleged “base member”) to frame 16 (the alleged
`
`“carriage”). Accordingly, we conclude that Daktronics has failed to
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01369
`Patent 6,520,485 B1
`
`establish that the “sliding seat” of Geiss performs the function of “slideably
`
`mounting the base member to the carriage.” Daktronics similarly fails to
`
`explain whether the sliding seat constitutes slide 45 or incorporates bearings
`
`of any kind, much less the linear bearings 35A, 35B. Moreover, Daktronics
`
`neither contends nor proffers evidence to establish that Geiss’s structures are
`
`equivalent to those of the ’485 patent. For all these reasons, Daktronics fails
`
`to establish that Geiss’s sliding seat is the claimed “first means.”
`
`b) Barnet
`
`Daktronics contends that Barnet describes the “first means” because
`
`Barnet describes a “carriage 36 [that] is supported for longitudinal
`
`movement with respect to the frame 12 by means of four flanged wheels 44
`
`which are received within the channels 28 and 30.” Id. at 43. Daktronics
`
`also cites Mr. Gorlin’s testimony that essentially relies upon the same
`
`disclosure in Barnet. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 54, 118).
`
`Daktronics makes no attempt to establish that flanged wheels 44
`
`received within channels 28 and 30 of Barnet are the same structures as the
`
`slides 45 and bearings 35A, 35B of the ’485 patent. Rather, at most, we
`
`interpret Daktronics’s contention as merely that Barnet’s wheels and
`
`channels permit the carriage to move longitudinally with respect to the frame
`
`(the alleged “base member”). The function recited in the “first means”
`
`requires, however, that the base member and carriage be slideably mounted
`
`to each other, not just be able to move longitudinally relative to each other.
`
`Accordingly, we conclude that Daktronics fails to establish that Barnet
`
`describes the claimed “first means.”
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01369
`Patent 6,520,485 B1
`
`c) Bittner
`
`Daktronics contends that Bittner describes the
`
`claimed “first means” as follows: “The lengthwise
`
`movable carriage 20 [is] formed by two pipe pieces 23,
`
`24, which can move on the guide rods 21, 22. To lessen
`
`the sliding friction, bearings (not shown) can be
`
`provided between the pipe pieces and the guide rods.”
`
`Pet. 43 (quoting Ex. 1010, 3:26–29). Bittner’s Figure 3,
`
`reproduced at right, is a partial side view of Bittner’s
`
`winch that illustrates the relationship between pipe
`
`pieces 23, 24 and guide rods 21, 22. From this figure,
`
`Bittner describes guide rods 21, 22 that are nested within pipes 23, 24.
`
`Bittner mentions without illustrating “bearings” between guide rods 21, 22
`
`and pipes 23, 24. Ex. 1010, 3:28–29. However, Bittner provides no further
`
`explanation of the types of bearings that may be employed.
`
`Daktronics fails to explain how Bittner’s combination of guide rods
`
`21, 22 with pipes 23, 24 is the same structure as the slides 45 and linear
`
`bearings 35A, 35B of the ’485 patent. Despite Bittner’s brief reference to
`
`“bearings,” Daktronics fails to proffer evidence probative of how an
`
`ordinarily skilled artisan would have read Bittner’s description of bearings.
`
`Accordingly, we conclude that Daktronics has failed to establish that Bittner
`
`describes the claimed “first means.”
`
`d) Fajtak
`
`Daktronics contends that Fajtak describes the claimed “first means” as
`
`follows:
`
`The invention is characterized in that the frame is formed
`by a beam (1), . . . and the cable winding unit (4) is formed by a
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01369
`Patent 6,520,485 B1
`
`hook-shaped beam (5) with permanently installed deflection
`rollers (6), which is moved in the axial direction by a threaded
`spindle (7) lying in a prolongation of the axle of the cable drum
`(2) and led on sliding rails on the beam (1) on the side opposite
`the threaded spindle.
`
`Pet. 42 (quoting Ex. 1015, 2:17–22). These
`
`structures are shown in Figure 1 of Fajtak, which is a
`
`side view of Fajtak’s winch and reproduced in
`
`pertinent part at right. Daktronics also contends that
`
`Fajtak describes the “first means” in the form of
`
`sliding rails 92 as follows: “The threaded spindle (7)
`
`engages the shorter leg of the beam (5), while the
`
`longer leg in this case is configured as a sliding rail
`
`on the side facing the motor and is led by this on the
`
`frame or on the bearing of the cable drum (2).”
`
`Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1015, 3:9–12). Fajtak does not
`
`mention any use of bearings in connection with
`
`sliding rails 9. Moreover, Fajtak’s Figure 1 provides
`
`very little, if any, detail regarding the configuration
`
`of its “sliding rails.”
`
`Daktronics fails to explain how Fajtak’s sliding rails 9 constitutes the
`
`same structure as slides 45 with cylindrical linear bearings 35A and flat
`
`linear bearings 35B of the ’485 patent. Fajtak does not expressly mention
`
`bearings of any type used in connection with sliding rails 9. Furthermore,
`
`Daktronics proffers no evidence on the types of bearings, if any, that an
`
`ordinarily skilled artisan would consider to have been implicitly described
`
`
`2 Fajtak refers to its sliding rails as element 9 in claim 1. Ex. 1015, 5:9.
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01369
`Patent 6,520,485 B1
`
`by Fajtak. Daktronics also proffers no evidence that Fajtak’s sliding rails 9
`
`are equivalent to the structures for “slideably mounting the base member to
`
`the carriage” that are described in the ’485 patent. Accordingly, we
`
`conclude that Daktronics has failed to establish that Fajtak describes the
`
`claimed “first means.”
`
`C. CONCLUSION
`
`Both independent claims 21 and 27 among the challenged claims, and,
`
`therefore, all challenged claims recite the same “first means for slideably
`
`mounting the base member to the carriage.” Of the seven prior art
`
`references that Daktronics relies upon as the basis of its challenges to the
`
`claims, it relies upon four as teaching the claimed “first means.” For the
`
`reasons explained in Part II.B.2 above, we have concluded that Daktronics
`
`has failed to adduce evidence to establish that any of these four references
`
`teach the claimed “first means.” For us to be authorized to institute an inter
`
`partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), Daktronics must present such
`
`evidence in the Petition, 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).
`
`Because Daktronics has not done so, we deny the request for inter partes
`
`review.
`
`III. ORDER
`
`For the reasons given, it is:
`
`ORDERED that inter partes review is not instituted with respect to
`
`Daktronics’ challenges that claims 21, 23, 24, and 26–28 are unpatentable.
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01369
`Patent 6,520,485 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Russell T. Wong
`James H. Hall
`BLANK ROME, LLP
`DaktronicsIPR@BlankRome.com
`JHall@BlankRome.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`James M. Bollinger
`Louis J. DelJuidice
`TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
`james.bollinger@troutmansanders.com
`louis.deljuidice@troutmansanders.com
`
`18

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