throbber
Filed on behalf of: GEP Power Products, Inc.
`
`By: Michael T. Griggs, Eric J. Lalor, Sarah M. Wong
`
`BOYLE FREDRICKSON, S.C.
`
`840 North Plankinton Avenue
`
`Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203
`
`414-225-9755
`
`mtg@boylefred.com, ejl@boylefred.com,
`smw@boylefred.com
`
`
`
`Paper No.____
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`-------------------------
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`-------------------------
`
`GEP Power Products, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Arctic Cat Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`-------------------------
`
`Case IPR2016-________
`Patent 7,420,822
`
`-------------------------
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
` GEP Power Products, Inc. (“Petitioner”) is a real party-in-interest and
`
`
`
`submits this Petition for Inter Partes Review of claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent
`
`7,420,822 (“the ‘822 patent”) (Ex. 1001). Polaris Industries Inc. (“Polaris”) is also
`
`a real party-in-interest. There are no other real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`
`
`On January 4, 2016, Arctic Cat Inc. (“Patent Owner”) sued Polaris in the
`
`U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging infringement of the ‘822
`
`patent, captioned Arctic Cat Inc. v. Polaris Industries Inc., Case No. 0:16-cv-
`
`00008-WMW-HB. Petitioner supplies a power distribution module to Polaris that
`
`Patent Owner has accused of infringing the ‘822 patent.
`
`C. Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel:
`
`
`
`Michael T. Griggs (Reg. No. 52,969)
`
`Back-up Counsel:
`
`Eric J. Lalor (Reg. No. 54,631)
`
`Back-up Counsel:
`
`Sarah M. Wong (Reg. No. 69,991)
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Service Information
`
`
`Email:
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael Griggs, mtg@boylefred.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: Boyle Fredrickson, 840 N. Plankinton Ave.,
`Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`Telephone: 414-225-9755
`
`Facsimile: 414-225-9753
`
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Claims 1-10 of the ‘822 patent are unpatentable for the grounds listed below:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-10 are unpatentable under § 102 as anticipated by Svette.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-10 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Svette in
`
`view of Matsuoka.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 2, 5, 9 and 10 are unpatentable under § 102 as anticipated
`
`by Boyd.
`
`Ground 4: Claims 3, 4 and 6-8 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over
`
`Boyd in view of Svette.
`
`
`
`This Petition, which is further supported by the declaration of Lawrence R.
`
`Happ, demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail
`
`with respect to at least one challenged claim and that each challenged claim is not
`
`patentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘822 PATENT (Ex. 1001)
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the purported invention
`
`
`
`Generally speaking, the ‘822 patent discloses an electrical distribution
`
`system for personal recreational vehicles such as ATVs and snowmobiles. The
`
`electrical distribution system includes a housing having a plurality of receptacle
`
`openings in a substantially flat wall. The openings are positioned in an array of
`
`equally spaced rows and columns (the claims are directed to an array having at
`
`least three rows and three columns). The openings receive conventional electrical
`
`components, e.g., diodes, relays, circuit breakers, and fuses, where the components
`
`“bridge across” adjacent openings. There is also a component arrangement guide
`
`that contains instructions as to where the various electrical components should be
`
`placed within the system (similar to a typical guide in a household fuse box that
`
`indicates which fuses correlate to which rooms/appliances in the house). The
`
`system further includes a distribution harness that bundles a plurality of electrical
`
`conductors, e.g., wires, which are received within the receptacle openings to
`
`electrically interface with the electrical components. These structures and
`
`configurations, which merely reflect a conventional vehicle fuse box, are more or
`
`less common to all of the claims at issue here. Figures 2 and 9 from the ‘822
`
`patent are shown below, identifying these conventional structures and
`
`configurations.
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`Housing
`
`
`
`Housing
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`4
`
`Distribution
`Harness
`
`
`
`Receptacle
`Openings
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`As is clear from the prosecution history and the prior art submitted herewith,
`
`electrical distribution systems having a housing with an array of equally spaced
`
`receptacle openings, as shown above, were well known in the art prior to the filing
`
`date of the ‘822 patent.
`
`B. The Prosecution History (Ex. 1007)
`
`
`
`All of the original claims were rejected in an Office Action dated October
`
`31, 2006, based primarily upon U.S. Patent 6,121,548 to Matsouka (“Matsouka”)
`
`(Ex. 1003). In in a response filed February 23, 2007, Patent Owner canceled many
`
`of the claims, amended others – focusing on the 3x3 array, the universal nature of
`
`the openings (e.g., they can accommodate a fuse or a relay), and the component
`
`arrangement guide – and added some new claims.
`
`
`
`In a Final Office Action dated May 30, 2007, all claims were again rejected,
`
`this time based primarily upon U.S. Patent 6,850,421 to Boyd (“Boyd”). Some
`
`claims were rejected based upon Matsouka in view of Boyd. In response, Patent
`
`Owner submitted a declaration from the named inventor, Darrel Janisch, and
`
`attempted to antedate Boyd.
`
`
`
`In a subsequent Office Action dated October 10, 2007, the Examiner deemed
`
`Patent Owner’s attempt to antedate Boyd sufficient, and withdrew the previous
`
`rejections based upon Boyd. However, all claims were again rejected, this time
`
`based primarily on U.S. Patent 6,435,910 to Blasko (“Blasko”) (Ex. 1004).
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner filed a response on April 4, 2008, attempting to distinguish
`
`over Blasko and the other art by arguing that the prior did not each an array of
`
`equally spaced openings where components “bridge across” adjacent openings.
`
`Patent Owner also argued that the art did not disclose a component arrangement
`
`guide secured directly to the wall in which the openings are located. The Examiner
`
`subsequently allowed the claims and issued a Notice of Allowance on June 5,
`
`2008.
`
`
`
`Thus, based upon the prosecution history, the USPTO previously determined
`
`the patentable aspects of the ‘822 patent to be:
`
` electrical components that bridge across an array of equally spaced openings
`
` attaching a component arrangement guide directly to the wall in which the
`
`openings are located
`
`As explained in further detail below, each of these purportedly patentable aspects
`
`claimed in the ‘822 patent is found in the prior art.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`A.
`
`Svette (Ex. 1005)
`
`
`
`Svette discloses an electrical distribution system and was not considered
`
`during prosecution of the ‘822 patent. Svette issued on October 11, 1994, so it is
`
`prior art to the ‘822 patent under § 102(b).
`
`
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Overlay
`with indicia
`
`Equally
`Spaced
`Receptacle
`Openings
`
`Housing
`
`Electrical
`Components that
`bridge across
`adjacent
`openings
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown above in Fig. 1, the electrical distribution system of Svette
`
`includes the general components disclosed and claimed in the ‘822 patent, such as
`
`a housing, equally spaced receptacle openings arranged in a 4x9 array, electrical
`
`components that bridge across adjacent receptacle openings (see also Fig. 2), and
`
`an overlay attached to the housing that provides indicia as to where specific
`
`electrical components should be attached.
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`As explained in Svette, it is desirable to have a universal housing that can
`
`“accommodate different numbers of electrical devices, such as relays and fuses.”
`
`Svette, 1:14-25. However, “a problem can arise when connecting electrical
`
`devices having multiple terminals or prongs in that they can be rotated 180° and
`
`misconnected to the housing block.” Svette, 1:26-33. To address this problem,
`
`Svette describes an alignment overlay that “prevents the electrical devices from
`
`being misconnected to the housing block.” Svette, 1:34-50. The overlay has
`
`indicia so that components may be connected in the proper orientation. Id.
`
`Further, the overlay covers certain of the cavities – which are not to be used – and
`
`uncovers others that are to be used. Id.
`
`B.
`
`Boyd (Ex. 1002)
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Boyd is available as prior art in this proceeding
`
`As discussed above, rather than attempt to substantively distinguish the
`
`claims over Boyd during prosecution, Patent Owner instead attempted to swear
`
`behind Boyd by submitting a declaration from the named inventor, Darrel Janisch,
`
`which was ultimately accepted by the Examiner.
`
`The Board, however, is not bound by the Examiner’s determination that the
`
`two Janisch declarations sufficiently antedated Boyd. See Iron Dome LLC v. E-
`
`Watch, Inc., IPR2014-00439, Institution Decision (Paper 16), August 4, 2014, pg.
`
`6. Here, as in Iron Dome, the Janisch declaration is insufficient to antedate Boyd.
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`Priority of invention goes to the first party to reduce to practice unless the
`
`other party can show that it was the first to conceive the invention and that it
`
`exercised reasonable diligence in later reducing that invention to practice. Brown
`
`v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d
`
`1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1577
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1996). An inventor’s testimony, standing alone, is insufficient to prove
`
`conception, as some form of corroboration is required. Mahurkar, 79 F.3d at 1577;
`
`Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A rule of reason applies to
`
`determine whether the inventor’s testimony has been corroborated. Price, 988 F.2d
`
`at 1194.
`
`During the period in which reasonable diligence must be shown, there must
`
`be continuous exercise of reasonable diligence. In re McIntosh, 230 F.2d 615, 619
`
`(CCPA 1956); see also Burns v. Curtis, 172 F.2d 588, 591 (CCPA 1949) (referring
`
`to “reasonably continuous activity”). A party alleging diligence must account for
`
`the entire critical period. Griffith v. Kanamuru, 816 F.2d 624, 626 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1987); Gould v. Schawlow, 363 F.2d 908, 919 (CCPA 1966). Even a short period
`
`of unexplained inactivity is sufficient to defeat a claim of diligence. Morway v.
`
`Bondi, 203 F.2d 742, 749 (CCPA 1953); Ireland v. Smith, 97 F.2d 95, 99-100
`
`(CCPA 1938). In In re Mulder, 716 F.2d 1542, 1542-46 (Fed. Cir. 1983), for
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`example, the Federal Circuit affirmed a determination of lack of reasonable
`
`diligence, where the evidence of record was lacking for a two-day critical period.
`
`Likewise, in Rieser v. Williams, 255 F.2d 419, 424 (CCPA 1958), there was
`
`no showing of diligence where no activity was shown during the first thirteen days
`
`of the critical period. A party alleging diligence must provide corroboration with
`
`evidence that is specific both as to facts and dates. Gould, 363 F.2d at 920;
`
`Kendall v. Searles, 173 F.2d 986, 993 (CCPA 1949). The rule of reason does not
`
`dispense with the need for corroboration of diligence that is specific as to dates and
`
`facts. Gould, 363 F.2d at 920; Kendall, 173 F.2d at 993; see also Coleman v.
`
`Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 360 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`Here, the Janisch declaration asserts a conception date “prior to the April 1,
`
`2002 filing date of the Boyd patent.” Janish Decl., pg. 1, ¶ 4. In an attempt to
`
`corroborate this claim, Janisch submitted “notes describing the invention,” but the
`
`notes “have been redacted to remove names and dates.” Id. These undated notes,
`
`the author of which is unknown, do not corroborate Janisch’s vague claim of
`
`conception before April 1, 2002.
`
`
`
`Moreover, even if Janisch’s claimed conception date is taken at face value –
`
`which it should not be – the purported evidence of diligence falls woefully short of
`
`what is required. In order to antedate Boyd, Janisch needs to demonstrate
`
`diligence from April 1, 2002 through October 29, 2002, a period of nearly six
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`months. Janisch, however, submitted only a single email dated May 17, 2002 as
`
`evidence of diligence. Thus, there is an unexplained gap of more than six weeks
`
`between April 1, 2002 and May 17, 2002. Even more troubling, there is an
`
`unexplained gap of more than five months between May 17, 2002 and the filing of
`
`Janisch’s priority application on October 29, 2002.
`
`Setting aside the corroboration concerns relating to the conception date,
`
`when taken at face value the Janisch declaration fails to establish diligence in
`
`reduction to practice. Thus, Boyd is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`2.
`
`Boyd’s disclosure
`
`
`
`As set forth in the Examiner’s rejections during prosecution, Boyd discloses
`
`an electrical distribution system including nearly all of the features claimed in the
`
`‘822 patent, which Patent Owner did not substantively dispute. Specifically, the
`
`Examiner found that Boyd disclosed: “a housing having a wall… with a plurality
`
`of receptacle openings therethrough, the openings being arranged in an array of at
`
`least three rows and three equally spaced columns… the receptacle openings
`
`positioned to receive electrical components… across any adjacent openings in at
`
`least one row of the array… and a distribution harness having a plurality of
`
`electrical conductors, wherein the electrical conductors electrically cooperate with
`
`the receptacle openings for receiving electrical components.” May 30, 2007 Final
`
`Rejection, pp. 2-3.
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`The only feature of the dependent claims of the ‘822 patent that the
`
`Examiner did not identify in Boyd is the component arrangement guide, which was
`
`nevertheless known in the art (see, e.g., Svette). Figures 1 and 2 of Boyd are
`
`shown below, identifying the key components claimed in the ‘822 patent.
`
`Electrical
`components
`bridging across
`openings
`
`Housing
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Housing
`
`Equally
`Spaced
`Receptacle
`Openings
`
`
`
`As explained in Boyd, at the time of the invention (i.e., 2002), fuse boxes
`
`(also referred to as a power distribution module) were typically “vehicle specific.”
`
`Boyd, 1:32-35. In other words, each vehicle had a particular fuse box including a
`
`particular configuration of electrical components. Thus, a configurable fuse box,
`
`such as the one disclosed in Boyd, would simplify vehicle design by enabling
`
`usage of the fuse box across different vehicles having different electrical
`
`components and configurations. Boyd, 1:33-54. As shown above, the electrical
`
`components bridge across adjacent openings, which are arranged in an equally
`
`spaced 4x9 array of rows and columns.
`
`C. Matsuoka (Ex. 1003)
`
`
`
`Matsuoka discloses an electrical distribution system and was cited as prior
`
`art during the prosecution history. For purposes of this petition, Matsouka is relied
`
`upon to demonstrate that it was well known in the art to arrange wires in a wire
`
`harness (or distribution harness as described and claimed in the ‘822 patent) when
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`connecting the wires to electrical components within an electrical distribution
`
`system. Figure 1 from Matsuoka is shown below.
`
`Distribution
`harness
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`In an inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). 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, the Board generally gives 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.”) [internal quotation marks
`
`omitted].
`
`Here, the claim terms do not require any specific constructions and should
`
`be accorded their ordinary and customary meaning. As explained above, the
`
`claims largely describe a conventional electrical distribution system, identifying
`
`components such as “housing,” “openings,” “electrical components,” “component
`
`arrangement guide” and “distribution harness.”
`
`The Trial Practice Guide explains that “where appropriate, it may be
`
`sufficient for a party to provide a simple statement that the claim terms are to be
`
`given their broadest reasonable interpretation, as understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art and consistent with the disclosure.” Guide, pg. 38. That is the case
`
`here.
`
`“The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is
`
`presumed to know the relevant prior art.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1995), quoting Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc.,
`
`807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, for purposes of this Petition, a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art would have a working knowledge of Boyd, Svette,
`
`Matsouka, and all of the prior art cited during the prosecution history.
`
`In terms of education and experience, a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have at least a bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering with
`
`at least two to five years of work experience relating to designing electrical control
`
`system components. Happ Decl. (Ex. 1006), ¶ 50.
`
`VII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS OF REJECTION
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-10 are unpatentable under § 102 as
`anticipated by Svette
`
`
`
` Independent claims 1, 5, and 10 are largely duplicative of one another. The
`
`primary elements include: a power distribution module (claims 1 and 10), an
`
`electrical distribution module (claim 5), a housing, a wall (claims 1 and 5) or a
`
`component attachment portion (claim 10), receptacle openings that are arranged in
`
`an array of at least three equally spaced rows and three equally spaced columns,
`
`and a wire harness. Additional limitations in the claims are also addressed, with
`
`the particular claim identified in the heading. Summary claim charts follow.
`
`
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`1.
`
`Power or electrical distribution module, and housing
`or component attachment portion (Independent
`Claims 1, 5 and 10)
`
`
`Claims 1 and 10 require a power distribution module, and claim 5 requires
`
`an electrical distribution module. A person having ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand a “power distribution module” and an “electrical distribution module”
`
`as describing the same component within a vehicle. Happ Decl., ¶ 55. Claims 1
`
`and 5 require a housing having a plurality of receptacle openings, and claim 10
`
`requires a component attachment portion comprising an outer wall surrounding a
`
`plurality of connector receptacles. A person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`similarly would understand these limitations as describing the same component
`
`within a vehicle. Id.
`
`Svette discloses a power distribution module (or electrical distribution
`
`module), as shown in Figs. 1-3 and described throughout the specification. Id. The
`
`distribution module of Svette includes a housing 12, which is claimed as a
`
`“component attachment portion” in claim in claim 10 of the ‘822 patent. Id.
`
`2. Wall with plurality of equally-spaced receptacle
`openings (Independent Claims 1 and 5) or receptacles
`(Independent Claim 10)
`
`
`
`Claims 1 and 5 require a wall having receptacle openings arranged into an
`
`array of at least three equally spaced rows and columns. Claim 10 requires
`
`“receptacles” in equally spaced rows and equally spaced columns. Figure 1 of
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`Svette shows a plurality of cavities 14 within the end face 22 of the housing 12.
`
`The cavities 12 are equally spaced apart and arranged in a 4 by 9 array. Happ
`
`Decl., ¶ 56.
`
`3.
`
`Electrical components bridging across openings
`(claims 1 and 5) or receptacles (claim 10)
`
`
`Claims 1, 5 and 10 further state that openings receive electrical components
`
`“across adjacent openings” (claim 1) or “that the components bridge across
`
`adjacent openings” (claim 5) or that the leads of electrical components “bridge
`
`across at least two adjacent receivers” (claim 10). This is shown in Figs. 1 and 2,
`
`where electrical components 34 have multiple prongs 110 that bridge across the
`
`cavities 14. Happ Decl., ¶ 57.
`
`4.
`
`Distribution harness (Independent Claims 1, 5 and
`10)
`
`
`
`In Fig. 3, Svette shows an exemplary electrical conductor 70, i.e., a wire.
`
`Svette further explains that the connector housing has a “cable receiving end” that
`
`receives “electrical cables that are positioned within the cavities,” such as the wire
`
`shown in Fig. 3. Svette, Abstract. Collectively, the cables that are received within
`
`the cavities constitute a distribution harness. Happ Decl., ¶ 58.
`
`
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Fuse and relay (Claim 2) and group of components
`(Claim 9)
`
`Claim 2 requires a fuse and a relay, which are disclosed in Svette as
`
`conventional electrical components. See, e.g., Svette, 1:14-25. Claim 2 further
`
`requires that the same receptacle openings can receive the fuse or the relay. Svette
`
`discloses a “universal housing,” Svette, 1:34-37, meaning that the openings are
`
`designed to receive various configurations and combinations of conventional
`
`electrical components having essentially equal terminal spacing. Happ Decl., ¶ 59.
`
`Claim 9 requires that the receptacle openings accommodate at least two
`
`different components from the group of resistors, capacitors, diodes, relays and
`
`fuses. Svette discloses conventional components, including relays and fuses.
`
`Svette, 1:14-25; Claim 4 of Svette; Happ Decl., ¶ 60. Claim 9 further requires that
`
`the openings accommodate the components “across any adjacent openings.” As
`
`discussed above, this is shown in Figs. 1 and 2 of Svette. Happ Decl., ¶ 60.
`
`6.
`
`Component arrangement guide (Claims 3, 4, and 6-8)
`
`
`
`Claims 3, 4 and 6-8 claim various limitations directed to a component
`
`arrangement guide. Claims 3 and 6 require a component arrangement guide
`
`located on top of the wall, where the guide indicates of the location of the electrical
`
`components. Svette discloses an alignment overlay 20 that overlies the end face 22
`
`of the housing 12. Svette, 2:12-20; Happ Decl., ¶ 61. The overlay 20 has indicia
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`
`and openings arranged in a predetermined pattern to provide a footprint for
`
`electrical devices 24, 26 to be connected to the connector housing 12 and mated
`
`with the terminals 16. Id.
`
`Claim 4 requires that the guide is a decal that covers selected openings that
`
`are not to be inserted with electrical components. Claim 7 requires that guide is a
`
`decal, but omits the requirement that the guide covers selected openings. Svette
`
`explains that the overlay is adhesively secured to the housing. Svette, 2:12-23;
`
`Happ Decl., ¶ 62. Svette further explains that the overlay covers cavities that are
`
`not being used. Svette, 3:20-37; Happ Decl., ¶ 62. This is also shown in Figure 2.
`
`Happ Decl., ¶ 62.
`
`Claim 8 requires locator means for proper placement of the decal on the
`
`wall. The housing of Svette has a multiple projections 120, 122 that interface with
`
`various notches 132, 134 in the overlay 20 to ensure that the overlay 20 is properly
`
`oriented on the housing 12. Svette, 3:48-65; Fig. 1; Happ Decl., ¶ 63.
`
`7.
`
`Upper and lower receiver (Independent Claim 10)
`
`
`
`Independent claim 10 further defines the receptacles as having an upper
`
`receiver and a lower receiver, wherein the upper receiver receives the electrical
`
`component and the lower receiver receives a wire from the distribution harness.
`
`Svette discloses this configuration in Figure 3, and further explains the
`
`configuration at 2:35-3:2 (e.g., “[a] connector housing 12 also has a plurality of
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`
`
`cavities 14 extending longitudinally therethrough from the cable receiving end 30
`
`[at the bottom of the housing] to the mating end 22 [at the top of the housing]”);
`
`Happ Decl., ¶ 64.
`
`8.
`
`Summary claim chart for Ground 1
`
`
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-10 unpatentable as anticipated by Svette
`
`Claim 1
`Svette, 1:14-18 (disclosing an
`“automotive electrical system”).
`Svette, Figs. 1-3.
`
`A personal recreational vehicle
`comprising:
`an electrical distribution system for
`distributing electrical signals and
`power, the electrical distribution
`system including a power distribution
`module, wherein at least a portion of
`the electrical signals and power passes
`through the power distribution module,
`the power distribution module
`including:
`a housing having a plurality of
`receptacle openings in a substantially
`flat wall, the wall having a front side
`and a back side, wherein the receptacle
`openings are positioned in an array of
`at least three equally spaced-apart rows
`and at least three equally spaced-apart
`columns, the receptacle openings
`positioned to receive electrical
`components on the front side of the
`wall across any adjacent openings in at
`least one row of the array; and
`a distribution harness on the backside
`of the wall opposite the receptacle
`openings, the distribution harness
`having a plurality of electrical
`
`Svette, Figs. 1-3; Svette, 2:13-17; 2:35-
`44.
`
`Svette, Fig. 3; Svette, 1:5-18; 2:45-56.
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-10 unpatentable as anticipated by Svette
`
`
`conductor cables, wherein the electrical
`conductor cables electrically cooperate
`with the receptacle openings for
`receiving electrical components.
`
`Claim 2
`Svette, Fig. 1; Svette, 1:14-25
`(discussing common electrical
`components such as relays and fuses);
`Claim 4 of Svette; Svette 1:34-37
`(describing a “universal connector
`housing”).
`Claim 3
`Svette, Fig. 1, showing an overlay with
`indicia; Svette, 2:12-23; Svette, Claim
`3.
`
`The personal recreational vehicle of
`claim 1, further including a fuse and a
`relay, wherein the same receptacle
`openings can receive the fuse or the
`relay.
`
`The personal recreational vehicle of
`claim 1, wherein the housing further
`includes a component arrangement
`guide located directly on top of the
`wall having the receptacle openings,
`wherein the component arrangement
`guide indicates the location of the
`electrical components to be integrated
`with the harness.
`
`The personal recreational vehicle of
`claim 3, wherein the component
`arrangement guide is a decal, the decal
`covering selected openings not to be
`inserted with electrical components.
`
`Claim 4
`Svette, Figs. 1 and 2, showing an
`overlay with indicia; Svette, 1:34-50;
`Svette, 2:12-23; Svette, Claim 3.
`
`Claim 5
`An electrical distribution module for a
`Svette, 1:14-18 (disclosing an
`vehicle, the module comprising:
`“automotive electrical system”); Svette
`Figs. 1-3.
`Svette, Figs. 1-3; Svette, 2:13-17; 2:35-
`44.
`
`a housing having a wall with a plurality
`of receptacle openings therethrough,
`the openings being arranged in an array
`of at least three rows and three equally
`spaced columns, the receptacle
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-10 unpatentable as anticipated by Svette
`
`
`openings positioned to directly receive
`unitary electrical components, each
`having a plurality of couplings fixed
`relative to each other, such that the
`components bridge across any adjacent
`openings in at least one row of the
`array; and
`a distribution harness opposite the
`receptacle openings, the distribution
`harness having a plurality of electrical
`conductor cables, wherein the electrical
`conductor cables electrically cooperate
`with the receptacle openings for
`receiving electrical components, the
`conductor cables extending from the
`housing to route power signals
`throughout the vehicle.
`
`Svette, Fig. 3; Svette, 1:5-18
`
`The module of claim 5, further
`comprising a component arrangement
`guide on the wall, the guide having
`placement indicia for electrical
`components adjacent a plurality of the
`receptacle openings.
`
`Claim 6
`Svette, Fig. 1, showing an overlay with
`indicia; Svette, 2:12-23; Svette, Claim
`3.
`
`The module of claim 6, wherein the
`guide comprises a decal.
`
`The module of claim 7, wherein the
`housing further comprises locator
`means for proper placement of the
`decal on the wall.
`
`Claim 7
`Svette, Fig. 1, showing an overlay with
`indicia; Svette, 1:34-50; Svette, 2:12-
`23; Svette, Claim 3.
`Claim 8
`Svette, 3:48-65; Fig. 1.
`
`The module of claim 5, wherein the
`receptacle openings accommodate at
`
`Claim 9
`Svette, Figs. 1 and 2; Svette, 1:14-25
`(discussing common electrical
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`23
`
`

`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-10 unpatentable as anticipated by Svette
`
`
`components such as relays and fuses);
`Claim 4 of Svette.
`
`least two different components,
`selected from a group of components
`including resistors, capacitors, diodes,
`relays, and fuses, across any adjacent
`openings along at least one of the rows.
`Claim 10
`Svette, Figs. 1-3.
`
`A power distribution module
`comprising:
`a component attachment portion
`comprising an outer wall surrounding a
`plurality of connector receptacles, the
`component receptacles being arranged
`in equally spaced rows and equally
`spaced columns, the receptacles having
`an upper receiver and a lower receiver;
`a plurality of rigid electrical
`components each having at least two
`leads inserted into the upper receivers
`of the component receptacles bridging
`across at least two adjacent receivers;
`a distribution harness having a plurality
`of electrical conductors, wherein the
`electrical conductors are coupled to the
`lower receivers connecting the
`electrical conductors to the plurality of
`components.
`
`Svette, Figs. 1-3; Svette 2:35-3:2.
`
`Svette, Figs. 1-3.
`
`Svette, Fig. 3; Svette, 1:5-18; 2:45-56.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Ground 2: Claims 1-10 are unpatentable under § 103 as
`obvious over Svette in view of Matsuoka
`
`It is believed that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`Svette as disclosing a distribution harness as claimed in the ‘822 patent. However,
`
`to the extent the Board determines that Svette does not disclose a distribution
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`24
`
`

`
`
`
`harness, this conventional method of bundling wires is disclosed in Matsuoka. It
`
`would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the
`
`distribution harness disclosed in Matsuoka with the distribution module of Svette,
`
`which is nothing more “than the predictable use of prior art elements according to
`
`their established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416; Happ Decl., ¶ 65. The
`
`analysis of all other claim elements of claims 1-10 disclosed in Svette and
`
`discussed above in relation to Ground 1 applies to Ground 2 and will not be
`
`repeated here.
`
`C. Ground 3: Claims 1, 2, 5, 9 and 10 are unpatentable under §
`102 as anticipated by Boyd
`
`1.
`
`Power or electrical distribution module, and housing
`or component attachment portion (Independent
`Claims 1, 5 and 10)
`
`Boyd discloses a power distribution module (or electrical distribution
`
`
`
`
`
`module) including a housing, as generally explained throughout the specification
`
`and shown in Figure 1. See, e.g., Boyd, Abstract (“the present invention relates to
`
`electrical component housings such as fuse relay boxes and the like”); Happ Decl.,
`
`
`
`¶ 66.
`
`{00973445.DOCX / }
`
`
`25
`
`

`
`
`
`2. Wall with plurality of equally-spaced receptacle
`openings (Independent Claims 1 and 5) or receptacles
`(Independent Claim 10)
`
`
`Figure 2 of Boyd shows a wall with equally-spaced receptacle openings (or
`
`receptacles). Boyd explains that “FIG. 2 is a view of the

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