IPR2017-00299
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`YOTRIO CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`LAKESOUTH HOLDINGS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781
`Title: Umbrella Apparatus
`
`Case No. IPR2017-00299
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER LAKESOUTH HOLDINGS, LLC’S PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-00299
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... ii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... v
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ........................................................................................... ix
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE ........................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 2
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`LAKESOUTH .......................................................................................... 2
`
`SUMMARY OF THE INVENTIONS ............................................................. 4
`
`C.
`
`CLAIMS AT ISSUE ................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`STANDARD FOR GRANTING AN INTER PARTES REVIEW ........................ 10
`
`B. OBVIOUSNESS STANDARD ................................................................... 11
`
`THE BOARD SHOULD DECLINE TO INSTITUTE REVIEW
`BECAUSE THE PRIOR ART ASSERTED HAS ALREADY
`BEEN CONSIDERED ................................................................................. 14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`FOUR PRIOR ART REFERENCES HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED .. 15
`
`THE TWO REFERENCES NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED ARE
`NON-ANALOGOUS ART AND ARE CUMULATIVE OF
`PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED REFERENCES ............................................. 23
`
`
`III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................... 6
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................ 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Page ii
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-00299
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781
`VI. THE BOARD SHOULD DECLINE TO INSTITUTE REVIEW
`
`BECAUSE PETITIONERS CANNOT DEMONSTRATE A
`
`LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS ...................................... 29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`LAKESOUTH’S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ............................. 29
`
`
`
`1.
`
`“recessed” ................................................................................ 29
`
`“enhancing” .............................................................................. 30
`
`2.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................................. 30
`
`SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................ 31
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,960,094 (“Small”) ....................................... 31
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,089,797 (“Wu I”) ........................................ 32
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,222,799 (“Sears”) ........................................ 34
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,758,948 (“Hale”) ......................................... 35
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,439,249 (“Pan”) .......................................... 37
`
`U.S. Patent No. 727,495 (“Todd”) ........................................... 39
`
`SUMMARY OF PETITIONERS’ PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR REJECTION ..... 40
`
`DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PRIOR ART AND THE CLAIMS ................. 42
`
`1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – Small and Wu I, with Sears and the knowledge
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art (as taught by Todd) ..... 45
`
`a. Motivation to Combine .................................................. 45
`
`b. Missing Elements .......................................................... 46
`
`Ground 2 – Small and Hale, and the knowledge of a
`person of ordinary skill in the art (as taught by Wu I,
`Sears, and Todd) ...................................................................... 47
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Page iii
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-00299
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a. Motivation to Combine .................................................. 47
`
`b. Missing Elements .......................................................... 48
`
`Ground 3 – Small and Pan, with Hale and the knowledge
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art (as taught by Todd) ..... 49
`
`a. Motivation to Combine .................................................. 49
`
`b. Missing Elements .......................................................... 50
`
`Ground 4 – Small and Pan, with Sears and the knowledge
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art (as taught by Todd) ..... 50
`
`a. Motivation to Combine .................................................. 51
`
`b. Missing Elements .......................................................... 51
`
`F.
`
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ....................... 51
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Commercial Success ................................................................ 52
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Acceptance by Others .............................................................. 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VII. THE BOARD SHOULD DECLINE TO INSTITUTE REVIEW
`
`BECAUSE PETITIONERS’ PROPOSED GROUNDS ARE
`
`HORIZONTALLY REDUNDANT ............................................................. 58
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 60
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ..................................................................... 62
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 63
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Page iv
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-00299
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`
`Ace Evert, Inc. v. LakeSouth Holdings, LLC
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00987, Paper 1 (P.T.A.B. April 1, 2015) ...................... 41
`
`Ace Evert, Inc. v. LakeSouth Holdings, LLC
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00987, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. July 8, 2015) ...................... 41
`
`Cable Elec. Prods., Inc. v. Genmark, Inc.
`770 F.2d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .................................................................... 52
`
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUP Int’l Corp.
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................... 13
`
`
`Conopco, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Co.
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00628, Paper 21 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2014) .................... 10
`
`Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd.
`851 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .................................................................... 53
`
`
`Ecolochem, Inc. v. S. Cal. Edison Co.
`227 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .............................................................. 13, 52
`
`
`EMC Corp. v. Personal Web Techs., LLC
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00087, Paper 25 (P.T.A.B. June 5, 2013) ...................... 59
`
`Ex parte Amazon Techs., Inc.
`
`2017 Pat. App. LEXIS 800 (Feb. 2, 2017) ............................................... 9, 43
`
`Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
`110 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................... 53
`
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.
`
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................... 11, 13
`
`Heart Failure Techs., LLC v. Cardiokinetix, Inc.
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00183, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2013) .................... 12
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Page v
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-00299
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781
`
`In re Fine
`
`837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ...................................................................... 6
`
`In re GPAC Inc.
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ...................................................................... 52
`
`
`In re Greene
`
`1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 5103 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 17, 1994) .......................... 9, 43
`
`In re Hiniker
`
`150 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...................................................................... 7
`
`In re Ochiai
`71 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ...................................................................... 13
`
`
`In re Oetiker
`977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .................................................................... 23
`
`
`In re Royka
`490 F.2d 981 (C.C.P.A. 1974) ...................................................................... 12
`
`
`In re Sernaker
`702 F.2d 989 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ...................................................................... 54
`
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................... 29
`
`
`In re Wilson
`
`424 F.3d 1382 (C.C.P.A. 1970) ................................................................ 9, 43
`
`Insite Vision Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
`
`783 F.3d 853 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................... 12
`
`J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co.
`106 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................... 52
`
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ..................................................................................... 44
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Page vi
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-00299
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.
`
`Case No. CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012) ................... 59
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.
`
`Case No. CBM2012-00003, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2012) .................... 60
`
`Metabolite Labs., Inc. v. Laboratory Corp. Am. Holdings
`370 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................... 54
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`Case No. IPR-2015-00483, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. July 15, 2015) ................... 19
`
`
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.
`
`679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 12
`
`Monarch Knitting Mach. Corp. v. Sulzer Morat GmbH
`139 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...................................................................... 12
`
`
`Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.
`
`566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................................................... 12
`
`ScentAir Techs., Inc. v. Prolitec, Inc.
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00180, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2013) ................... 59
`
`Source Techs., LLC v. LendingTree
`
`588 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 11
`
`Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.
`
`713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......................................................... 9, 13, 14
`
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc.
`617 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 44
`
`
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling U.S., Inc.
`
`699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 13
`
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.
`
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .............................................................. 24–25
`
`Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Page vii
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-00299
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781
`683 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 53
`
`
`
`Yotrio Corporation v. LakeSouth Holdings, LLC
`
`Case No. IPR2017-00298, Paper 1 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2017) ....................... 3
`
`Statutes & Rules
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ....................................................................................................... 40
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................ 11, 13, 40
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................ 10, 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................. 29
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107(c) ............................................................................................. 42
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b) ............................................................................................. 59
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ....................................................................................... 10, 29
`
`Other Authority
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ..................................................................... 10
`
`81 Fed. Reg. 18,750 (April 1, 2016) ....................................................................... 41
`
`81 Fed. Reg. 18,766 (April 1, 2016) ....................................................................... 41
`
`MPEP § 2143.01(V) ................................................................................................ 44
`
`MPEP § 2143.03 .................................................................................................. 6, 43
`
`MPEP § 2258.01 ....................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Page viii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`
`1201
`1202
`1203
`1204
`1205
`
`2001
`2002
`2003
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`2009
`2010
`
`IPR2017-00299
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibits
`U.S. Patent No. 6,612,713 (“’713 Patent”)
`File history of the ’713 Patent
`File history of the ’713 Patent inter partes reexamination
`no exhibit
`U.S. Patent No. 2,087,537 (“Finkel”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,053,931 (“Rushing”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,089,727 (“Wu I”)
`U.S. Patent No. 2,960,094 (“Small”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,758,948 (“Hale”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,439,249 (“Pan”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,999,060 (“Szekely”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,126,293 (“Wu II”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,222,799 (“Sears”)
`LakeSouth Holdings, LLC v. Ace Evert, Inc., Civ. No. 3:14-CV-
`1348, Dkt. No. 45, LakeSouth’s Claim Construction Brief
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781 (“’781 Patent”)
`File history of the ’781 Patent
`Declaration of Robert Smith-Gillespie
`U.S. Patent No. 2,244,737 (“Stewart”)
`U.S. Patent No. 727,495 (“Todd”)
`LakeSouth’s Exhibits
`Declaration of John S. Kuelbs [unredacted – sealed]
`Declaration of John S. Kuelbs [redacted – public]
`Exterior packaging for 9 ft. solar lighted umbrella
`Box label artwork for the Hampton Bay 9 ft. Solar Lighted
`Umbrella
`Use and Care Guide for the Hampton Bay 9 ft. Solar Lighted
`Umbrella
`Box label artwork for the Hampton Bay 9 ft. x 7 ft. Solar Lighted
`Umbrella
`Use and Care Guide for the Hampton Bay 9 ft. x 7 ft. Solar Lighted
`Umbrella
`U.S. Patent No. 6,499,856 (“Lee ’856”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,666,224 (“Lee ’224”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,911,493 (“Walker”)
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Page ix
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00299
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781
`
`2011
`2012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,584,564 (“Phyle”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,270,230 (“Mai”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Page x
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-00299
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE
`
`Petitioners Yotrio Corporation, Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc., Kohl’s
`
`Illinois, Inc., and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “Petitioners”) did not
`
`submit a specific articulated statement of material facts in their Petition.
`
`Accordingly, no response is required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a), and no facts are
`
`admitted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Page 1 of 63
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2017-00299
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781
`
`Chinese-based Yotrio Corporation; Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc.; Kohl’s
`
`Illinois, Inc.; and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “Petitioners”) filed a
`
`petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781 (“’781 Patent”). See
`
`Paper No. 1 (“’781 Petition”). The ’781 Patent generally concerns solar-powered
`
`patio umbrellas with light-emitting diodes (“LEDs”) disposed in a plurality of
`
`radially extending rib members.
`
`On November 30, 2016, the Board mailed a notice according a filing date to
`
`the ’781 Petition. See Paper No. 3 Patent Owner LakeSouth Holdings, LLC
`
`(“LakeSouth”) respectfully submits this Response to the ’781 Petition. This
`
`Response is being submitted within three months of the mailing date of that notice
`
`and is therefore timely filed.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`A.
`
`LAKESOUTH
`
`The ’781 Petition concerns U.S. Patent No. 8,794,791 (“the ’781 Patent”).
`
`The ’781 Patent is entitled “Umbrella Apparatus.” It duly and legally issued on
`
`August 5, 2014, from U.S. Patent Application No. 10/650,537, filed on August 28,
`
`2003, and naming Mr. Gregory Kuelbs as the sole inventor. The ’781 Patent is a
`
`continuation of—and claims priority to—United States Patent No. 6,612,713 (“the
`
`’713 Patent”), which is the subject of a co-pending Petition for Inter Partes
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Page 2 of 63
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-00299
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781
`Review filed by the same Petitioners. See Yotrio Corporation v. LakeSouth
`
`Holdings, LLC, Case No. IPR2017-00298, Paper 1 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2017) (“the
`
`’713 Petition”). The ’781 Patent further claims priority to Provisional Application
`
`No. 60/267,018, filed on February 7, 2001, and Provisional Application No.
`
`60/335,933, filed on November 2, 2001. The ’713 and ’781 Patents are part of a
`
`portfolio of related patents directed to solar-powered patio umbrella technologies
`
`(“Umbrella Patents”).
`
`LakeSouth is a small, family owned business headquartered in Southlake,
`
`Texas, a suburb located on the North side of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex.
`
`LakeSouth was founded by Gregory Kuelbs, the named inventor on the ’713 and
`
`’781 Patents. Mr. Kuelbs is a prolific inventor, named on over forty issued patents.
`
`Mr. Kuelbs and his nephew, John S. Kuelbs, manage the day-to-day business
`
`activities of LakeSouth. In prior years, LakeSouth licensed its technology to World
`
`Factory, Inc. (“World Factory”), which was similarly founded and run by the
`
`Kuelbs family. World Factory’s business was commercializing the inventions of
`
`the Umbrella Patents and other patents developed my Mr. Kuelbs. LakeSouth is the
`
`affiliated holding company that holds, licenses, and otherwise manages the
`
`intellectual property of Mr. Kuelbs and World Factory, following a November,
`
`2013, assignment.
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Page 3 of 63
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-00299
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781
`Kohl’s and Home Depot are defendants in a patent infringement lawsuit
`
`filed by LakeSouth. Petitioner Yotrio is the Chinese supplier to Kohl’s and Home
`
`Depot of certain solar-powered umbrellas that LakeSouth has accused of
`
`infringement in the litigation. Notably, LakeSouth used to supply solar-powered
`
`umbrellas (through World Factory) to Home Depot, but Home Depot no longer
`
`sells World Factory umbrellas.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE INVENTIONS
`
`The ’781 Patent “relates in general to patio umbrellas, and in particular, to
`
`an improved patio umbrella with integral lighting system and other modular
`
`electronic systems and components.” Exhibit 1201 at 1:15–18. More specifically,
`
`the claims at issue (Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5) each describe an umbrella apparatus that
`
`includes (1) an integral lighting system that includes light emitting diode (“LED”)
`
`elements placed in ribs hingedly attached to a pole of the umbrella; (2) a
`
`rechargeable electrical power supply for providing power to the LEDs; (3) a solar
`
`energy system for collecting solar energy and converting it into electrical energy
`
`for recharging the rechargeable electrical power supply; and (4) translucent
`
`materials disposed over the LEDs for enhancing the light emitted therefrom. See,
`
`e.g., Exhibit 1201 at Claim 1.
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Page 4 of 63
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`C. CLAIMS AT ISSUE
`
`Petitioners challenge four claims of the ’781 Patent: independent Claim 1
`
`IPR2017-00299
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781
`
`and dependent Claims 2, 4, and 5. See ’781 Petition at 1. For purposes of this
`
`Preliminary Response, LakeSouth adopts the same claim element numbering
`
`system used by Petitioners in the ’781 Petition:
`
`1. An umbrella apparatus comprising:
`
`1[a] a pole portion;
`
`1[b] an umbrella portion hingedly coupled to the pole portion, the
`umbrella portion having a plurality of radially extending rib
`members;
`
`1[c] a rechargeable electrical power system for providing electrical
`power to the umbrella apparatus;
`
`1[d] a solar energy system coupled to the pole portion, the solar
`energy system being adapted to collect solar energy and convert
`the solar energy into electrical energy, the solar energy system
`being conductively coupled to the rechargeable electrical power
`system, such that the solar energy collected and converted into
`electrical energy recharges the rechargeable electrical power
`system;
`
`1[e] a lighting system having a plurality of light emitting diodes
`conductively coupled to the rechargeable electrical power
`system, the light emitting diodes being recessed within the rib
`members; and
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Page 5 of 63
`
`

`

`
`
`1[f]
`
`IPR2017-00299
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781
`translucent materials disposed over the light emitting diodes for
`enhancing the light from the light emitting diodes.
`
`LakeSouth addresses only independent Claim 1 in this Preliminary
`
`Response, as the dependent claims are necessarily valid in light of Petitioners’
`
`failure to prove Claim 1 obvious. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988);
`
`MPEP § 2143.03.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
`
`Petitioners’ attempts to prove the ’781 Patent’s claims obvious fail in at least
`
`five respects.
`
`First, Petitioners reuse prior art and arguments previously (and repeatedly)
`
`considered and rejected by numerous examiners at the Patent Office. When
`
`considering whether to institute a request for inter partes review, the Director may
`
`take into account the fact that a petition uses prior art or arguments previously
`
`considered. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Here, as discussed further below in Section V.A,
`
`four of the six references asserted against the ’781 Patent have been before
`
`examiners on numerous occasions, both during prosecution of the ’781 Patent and
`
`during an eight-year inter partes reexamination of the related ’713 Patent. In fact,
`
`these same references were substantively considered—not merely acknowledged
`
`among a long list of prior art submitted in an information disclosure statement.
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Page 6 of 63
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-00299
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781
`While Petitioners suggest that their reliance on “old art”1 is somehow exempt from
`
`the general principle that rehashed arguments are disfavored, they misread and
`
`misapply the relevant case law to reach that conclusion. Additionally, in an attempt
`
`to overcome this principle, Petitioners cite to two references that they claim are
`
`“new.” But neither has anything to do with solar power or umbrellas, and one—a
`
`light bulb patent from 1903—is not even included in Petitioners’ analysis. As
`
`discussed below in Section V.B, Petitioners here have offered nothing new for the
`
`Board to consider that either has not already been considered or is not substantially
`
`the same as what has already been considered.
`
`In the end, despite years and years of prosecution, several litigations and an
`
`eight-year reexamination involving the related (and parent) ’713 Patent, and likely
`
`hours and hours of research attempting to find invalidating prior art, one fact
`
`remains undisputable: to date, no prior art reference has been uncovered that
`
`describes a (1) solar-powered (2) patio umbrella (3) with lights disposed in the
`
`ribs. Instead, Petitioners here—like the many challengers that have come before—
`
`rely on the fact that there separately exist (1) solar-powered umbrellas; (2) lighted
`
`umbrellas (some with lights in the ribs, and others with lights attached elsewhere);
`
`
`1 Both the United States Patent & Trademark Office and the Federal Circuit Court
`of Appeals use the term “old art” to describe references that have previously been
`before the USPTO. See, e.g., In re Hiniker, 150 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir.
`1998); MPEP § 2258.01.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Page 7 of 63
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-00299
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781
`and (3) solar-powered lights, to suggest that the claims of the ’781 Patent are
`
`obvious. But the obviousness analysis is not so trivial.
`
`Second, Petitioners cite to these types of references with little or no
`
`suggestion or motivation for combining them other than their bare assertions that
`
`they could be combined. But the law is clear; there must be some reason to
`
`combine references. Here, there is not. As discussed further below in Sections V.B
`
`and VI.E, the very references Petitioners rely upon in many cases teach away from
`
`their combinations. For example, Petitioners rely on numerous references that
`
`disclose umbrellas or other devices with lights positioned on the top rather than
`
`recessed in the ribs. See, e.g., Exhibits 1007 (Wu I), 1009 (Hale, not an umbrella),
`
`1012 (Wu II). Because the light at the top of the device is a central feature in these
`
`references, they teach away from the concept of placing a solar panel at the top
`
`portion for collecting solar energy and converting it into electrical energy. Other
`
`examples are discussed below.
`
`Third, the combinations relied on by Petitioners do not disclose all the
`
`elements of the claims. Without establishing a prima facie case of obviousness,
`
`Petitioners cannot prevail on their invalidity assertions. Petitioners often cite to
`
`passages from the prior art that—at best—disclose only individual words or
`
`phrases within a claim element. For example, in their second proposed ground for
`
`rejection, Petitioners cite only to the Hale reference as disclosing “a lighting
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Page 8 of 63
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-00299
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781
`system having a plurality of light emitting diodes conductively coupled to the
`
`rechargeable electrical power system, the light emitting diodes being recessed
`
`within the rib members.” But Hale cannot disclose this element, as it discloses
`
`neither light emitting diodes nor a rechargeable electrical power system. Petitioners
`
`cite to nothing in Hale that would even suggest these two elements are disclosed.
`
`The law is clear that all words in a claim have meaning and must be considered.
`
`See, e.g., In re Greene, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 5103 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 17, 1994)
`
`(citing In re Wilson, 424 F.3d 1382, 1385 (C.C.P.A. 1970)); Ex parte Amazon
`
`Techs., Inc., 2017 Pat. App. LEXIS 800 (Feb. 2, 2017). Petitioners’ four alleged
`
`grounds for obviousness are discussed in further detail in Section VI.E.
`
`Fourth, Petitioners’ request tellingly ignores secondary considerations of
`
`non-obviousness. Petitioners do not even cite
`
`the concept of secondary
`
`considerations in the ’781 Petition. The Federal Circuit has made clear that
`
`secondary considerations “must” be taken into account, rendering Petitioners’
`
`request facially insufficient. See Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530,
`
`1538 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioners likely ignore secondary considerations of non-
`
`obviousness of the ’781 Patent because commercial success and acceptance by
`
`others through the taking of licenses demonstrate the non-obviousness nature of the
`
`inventions. See infra, Section VI.F.
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Page 9 of 63
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-00299
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781
`Finally, Petitioners’ proposed grounds for rejection are horizontally
`
`redundant. The Board has discretion to deny institution on redundant grounds and
`
`should do so here.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`
`
`A.
`
`STANDARD FOR GRANTING AN INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`The Board may only grant a petition for inter partes review where “the
`
`information presented in the petition . . . 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(c). The Petitioners bear the
`
`burden of showing that this statutory threshold is met. See Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“The Board . . . may institute
`
`a trial where the petitioner establishes that the standards for instituting the
`
`requested trial are met . . . .”).
`
`Additionally, the Board has held that:
`
`The Board has discretion to decline to institute an inter partes review.
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a). One factor the Board may take into account
`when exercising that discretion
`is whether “the same or
`substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were
`presented to the Office.”
`
`Conopco, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Co., Case No. IPR2014-00628, Paper 21
`
`at 5 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2014) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)) (emphasis added).
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Page 10 of 63
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-00299
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781
`Given that nearly every prior art reference at issue here was previously considered
`
`by the USPTO—both during original prosecution of the ’781 Patent and during
`
`reexamination of the related ’713 Patent—the Board should reject the ’781
`
`Petition.
`
`As discussed further below, Petitioners have failed to meet their burden
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). LakeSouth therefore respectfully requests that the Board
`
`deny Petitioners’ request to institute an inter partes review of the ’781 Patent based
`
`on the ’781 Petition.
`
`
`
`B. OBVIOUSNESS STANDARD
`
`To make a prime facie showing of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
`
`Petitioners must, among other requirements, satisfy the requirements set forth in
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). These “Graham Factors,” as
`
`repeatedly set forth by the Federal Circuit, are factual determinations that support
`
`the ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. They include consideration of:
`
`“(1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the characteristics and understanding
`
`of an individual of ordinary skill in the relevant field of art at the time of invention,
`
`(3) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, and (4) the
`
`evidence of secondary factors, also known as objective indicia of non-
`
`obviousness.” Source Techs., LLC v. LendingTree, 588 F.3d 1063, 1069 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2009) (internal citations omitted).
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Page 11 of 63
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-00299
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,781
`Once the Graham Factors have been fulfilled, an explicit rationale must be
`
`presented as to why the claimed invention as a whole would be obvious to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time the invention was made, despite the
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, and without reference
`
`to or knowledge of the patent’s disclosure. See, e.g., Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva
`
`Pharm. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 995 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Mintz v. Dietz &
`
`Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Indeed, where the invention
`
`is less technologically complex, the need for Graham findings can be important to
`
`ward against falling into the forbidden use of hindsight.”). “Defining the problem
`
`in terms of its solution reveals improper hindsight in the selection of the prior art
`
`relevant to obviousness.” Insite Vision Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 783 F.3d 853, 859 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015) (quoting Monarc