UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________
`
`IRWIN SEATING COMPANY,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CAMATIC PROPRIETARY LIMITED,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________________
`
`Case No.: IPR2017-00385
`Patent 7,073,858
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE BY PATENT OWNER
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.107
`
`Filed: March 17, 2017
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00385
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`VI.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II.
`INTER PARTES REVIEW STANDARDS ................................................ 2
`III. THE ’858 PATENT ....................................................................................... 4
`A.
`BACKGROUND ........................................................................................ 4
`THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE ’858 PATENT ................................................ 6
`B.
`C.
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ..................................................................... 8
`IV. THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................. 10
`V.
`THE PETITION RELIES ON DEFECTIVE CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTIONS ............................................................................................... 11
`A.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION GENERALLY .................................................... 11
`B.
`THE CLAIM TERMS OF THE ’858 PATENT .............................................. 12
`SUMMARY OF THE ART CITED BY PETITIONER .......................... 14
`A.
`HEAD ET AL. (EX. 1003) ....................................................................... 15
`B.
`ALLISON (EX. 1004) ............................................................................. 18
`BURDICK (EX. 1005) ............................................................................ 19
`C.
`D.
`PIRETTI (EX. 1006) ............................................................................... 23
`E. MAGNUSON ET AL. (EX. 1007) ............................................................. 23
`VII. PETITIONER HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS FOR ANY OF GROUNDS 1-3,
`THEREFORE THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED. ................................ 24
`A.
`GROUND 1 SHOULD BE REJECTED BECAUSE PETITIONER HAS
`FAILED TO MAKE A SHOWING THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 13 AND 20 ARE FOUND IN THE PRIOR ART. ................. 25
`1.
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 25
`2.
`Claim 20 .................................................................................... 37
`GROUNDS 2 AND 3 SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE PETITIONER HAS
`B.
`FAILED TO MAKE A SHOWING THAT ALL OF THE ELEMENTS OF
`INDEPENDENT CLAIM 33 AND DEPENDENT CLAIMS 35 AND 36 ARE
`FOUND IN THE PRIOR ART. .............................................................................. 40
`1.
`Ground 2 is deficient as Head, Allison, Burdick, and
`Piretti all fail to teach or disclose a clamp portion with a
`return portion as required by claims 33 and 36. ...................... 40
`Magnuson does not overcome the deficiencies of Head,
`Allison, Burdick, and Piretti; therefore Ground 3 should
`be denied. .................................................................................. 44
`
`2.
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00385
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`THE PETITION DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CITED
`C.
`REFERENCES ARE PROPERLY COMBINABLE UNDER AN OBVIOUSNESS
`ANALYSIS. ...................................................................................................... 46
`The arguments advanced by Petitioner are not supported
`1.
`by a sufficient rationale tied to the specific claim
`language. ................................................................................... 46
`The arguments presented by Petitioner are merely
`conclusory and employ impermissible hindsight. ..................... 47
`Burdick and Allison are not analogous to the invention
`recited by the claims of the ’858 patent. ................................... 54
`Petitioner has fundamentally failed to demonstrate how
`the references can be combined. ............................................... 59
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 61
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00385
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312
`(Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................ 49, 51, 53
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ..................................... 11
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) ......................................................... 4
`Green Edge Enters., LLC v. Rubber Mulch Etc., LLC, 620 F.3d 1287 (Fed.
`Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................................ 3
`In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................................................... 57
`In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988). ............................................................ 47
`In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................... 57, 58, 61
`In re Sponnoble, 405 F.2d 578 (C.C.P.A. 1968)........................................................ 4
`In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................................... 52
`Kinetic Techs., Inc. v. Skyworks Sols., Inc., IPR2014-00529, Paper 8 (PTAB
`2014) ..................................................................................................................... 53
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................... 4, 25, 49
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................... 11
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ....................... 53, 55
`Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc., 520 F.3d
`1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008). ........................................................................................... 50
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................... 11
`Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................... 3
`Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ...................................... 49
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00385
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ...................... 28
`Straight Path IP Grp., Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O., 806 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir.
`2015) ..................................................................................................................... 11
`Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ........................ 49
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................... 12
`W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir.
`1983) ........................................................................................................ 48, 58, 61
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 ........................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. §112 ......................................................................................................... 27
`35 U.S.C. §314 ........................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. §316(e) ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`MPEP §2141.02(I) ................................................................................................... 46
`MPEP §2141.02(II) .................................................................................................. 46
`MPEP §2143(A) ....................................................................................................... 24
`
`Regulations
`
`35 C.F.R. §42.65(a) .................................................................................................. 52
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) ............................................................................................... 11
`37 C.F.R. §42.107(a) .................................................................................................. 1
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00385
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No.
`Ex. 2001
`
`Description
`Declaration of Dr. James Rice
`
`Ex. 2002
`
`Ex. 2003
`
`Ex. 2004
`
`Ex. 2005
`
`Exhibit to the Declaration of Dr. James Rice - Curriculum
`Vitae of Dr. James Rice
`
`Excerpt from MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY
`2021 (Deluxe ed. 1998) (“unitary”)
`
`Excerpt from THE NEW OXFORD DICTIONARY OF ENGLISH
`2023 (1998) (“unitary”)
`
`Vogel, United States Patent No. 5,246,270 (filed Dec. 23,
`1991)
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00385
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.107(a), Patent Owner Camatic Proprietary Limited
`
`(hereinafter “Camatic”) files this Preliminary Response to the Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,073,858 (“the ’858 patent”) submitted by
`
`Petitioner Irwin Seating Company and real parties in interest, Global Sourcing BG
`
`Ltd., and Blue Cube GB Ltd., (hereinafter collectively “Petitioner”). For the
`
`following reasons, trial as to the challenged claims of the ’858 patent should not be
`
`instituted.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’858 patent is directed to a novel and non-obvious seating system in
`
`which one or more seats are disposed on a beam. In an example installation, a first
`
`track potion of a beam is mounted to a support surface by bracket-mounted
`
`connectors and clamp portions of seats are secured to a second track portion of the
`
`beam independent of the first track portion. The seats can be mounted at any position
`
`on the beam. With a priority date of September 21, 1999, the ’858 patent provided
`
`an early solution to the need for a readily installable and reconfigurable seating
`
`system.
`
`Petitioner admits that none of its references discloses the inventive
`
`combination of the ’858 patent. Petitioner further admits that its primary reference,
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00385
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Head (Ex. 1003), and one of its secondary references, Allison (Ex. 1004), lack:
`
`“clamps to connect the seat supports to the upper portion of the beam.” Pet. at 40.
`
`In fact, the remaining secondary references on which Petitioner relies under an
`
`obviousness theory i.e., Burdick (Ex. 1005), Piretti (Ex. 1006), and Magnuson (Ex.
`
`1007)—fail to fill that gap in the manner recited by the challenged claims, as
`
`demonstrated hereinafter. Further, at least two of the references relied upon by the
`
`Petitioner are not analogous to the subject matter of the claims of the ’858 patent.
`
`Moreover, the alleged motivation to combine these references on which Petitioner
`
`relies is lacking as is a specific description of how the references would be combined.
`
`Still further, the combinations alleged by the Petitioner would impermissibly change
`
`the underlying principle of operation of the references. The Board should thus deny
`
`institution of an inter partes proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW STANDARDS
`
`A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained … if the
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that
`the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having
`ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.
`35 U.S.C. §103.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00385
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`The Petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence in an inter partes review (“IPR”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board (“PTAB”). 35 U.S.C. §316(e). The PTAB may only institute an IPR if there
`
`is a finding “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.
`
`“Whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to an ordinarily
`
`skilled artisan at the time of the invention ‘is a question of law based on underlying
`
`questions of fact.’” Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2013) quoting Green Edge Enters., LLC v. Rubber Mulch Etc., LLC, 620 F.3d 1287,
`
`1298 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “The underlying factual inquiries include: (1) the scope and
`
`content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) relevant objective
`
`considerations, including commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, [and]
`
`failure of others…” Id. at 1353 (internal quotation marks omitted), citing KSR Int'l
`
`Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`
`383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966)).
`
`The predecessor court of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`admonished against using the applicant’s teachings when evaluating obviousness:
`
`The court must be ever alert not to read obviousness into an invention
`on the basis of the applicant’s own statements; that is, we must view the
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00385
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`prior art without reading into that art appellant’s teachings…. The issue,
`then, is whether the teachings of the prior art would, in and of
`themselves and without the benefits of appellant’ [sic] disclosure, make
`the invention as a whole, obvious.”
`In re Sponnoble, 405 F.2d 578, 585 (C.C.P.A. 1968).
`
`III. THE ’858 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Background
`
`Camatic is a pioneer in the design and development of seating technology for
`
`mass audience venues, such as stadiums and auditoriums. By the late 1990’s
`
`Camatic recognized that there was a need for an improved seating system that would
`
`permit ready initial installation and flexible and efficient modification after
`
`installation. Ex. 1001 1:46-48, 6:1-22.
`
`Seating systems for stadiums and auditoriums must be designed to allow
`
`visual and other (e.g., aural) access to the playing surface, stage, etc. as well as easy
`
`and efficient ingress and egress into and out of seating areas. Id. at 6:31-48. Of
`
`course, such seating systems must also be designed to accommodate audience
`
`members of varying size and weight, while still meeting capacity requirements and
`
`other specified design criteria.
`
`Examples of traditional stadium and auditorium seating systems comprise
`
`individual seats bolted or otherwise secured to a floor, riser, or other support. Id. at
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00385
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`1:38-39. Seat loads in this type of seating system are carried, at least primarily, by
`
`the seat frames and transferred directly therefrom to the floor or other support
`
`surface.
`
`Prior to the invention of the ’858 patent, beam-mount seating systems were
`
`devised in which individual seats were secured to a beam that was secured directly
`
`or indirectly to the floor a riser. Id. at 1:24-30. The seats were secured to the beam
`
`at predetermined locations along the beam. Id. at 1: 24-37. A disadvantage of the
`
`beam seating systems in existence prior to the invention of the ‘858 patent was that
`
`the arrangements of seats and supports were inflexible, had to be specially designed
`
`in advance to fit the particular installation, and were difficult to modify after
`
`installation. Id. at 1:40-42.
`
`All seating systems encounter conditions that are unique to environments in
`
`which an audience is concurrently sharing a common set of experiences.
`
`Specifically, in such an environment, an athlete may make an exciting play, an actor
`
`may deliver a stirring monologue, a musician may play a well-crafted passage, etc.,
`
`that may elicit particular simultaneous or near-simultaneous responses by the
`
`audience members (i.e. jumping up, forcefully sitting, or teetering on the edge of a
`
`seat). In some cases, many, if not substantially all audience members can be
`
`expected to react in the same or substantially the same manner to an experience. The
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00385
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`seating system of whatever type, especially in beam-mounted systems, must be
`
`designed to accommodate the anticipated extremes of such loading and torsional
`
`conditions.
`
`The invention of the ’858 patent provides features that did not exist in prior
`
`art seating systems, such as: flexibility in positioning seats (Id. at 1:46-48);
`
`flexibility in the positioning of the mounting brackets (Id. at 3:51-60); a lack of
`
`interference between the connectors for the mounting brackets (Id. at 3:40-44); and
`
`easy and efficient modification of seat positioning with minimal tools (Id. at 6: 18-
`
`22).
`
`The Technology of the ’858 Patent
`B.
`The technology disclosed and claimed by the ’858 patent relates to seating
`
`systems used in public gathering spaces. The seating system of the ’858 patent
`
`comprises brackets mounted to a fixed surface with connectors that can be attached
`
`to the brackets. A beam is provided with a lower channel so that the beam can be
`
`slid onto the connectors in a horizontal orientation. See id. at 11: 14-39, Fig. 5. The
`
`beam also has an upper portion with a rear overhang with an undercut surface. A
`
`front overhang (opposite the rear overhang) also has an undercut surface. See id. at
`
`Fig. 5.
`
`A seat support having a clamp portion attaches to the upper portion of the
`
`beam such that it is free of the connectors on the lower portion and can be attached
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00385
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`at any point along the beam. Id. at Figs. 3, 5, 8. The clamp is shaped to fit against
`
`the undercut surface of the rear overhang on the upper portion of the beam. Id. A
`
`moveable fastener grips the undercut surface of the rear overhang to hold the support
`
`to the beam. See id. at Figs. 3, 8.
`
`According to one embodiment, the beam includes unitarily formed yet distinct
`
`track portions. Id. at 11:66–12:24. A first track portion includes a channel that
`
`receives bracket-mounted connectors by which the beam is mounted to a support
`
`surface. Each of a number of seats includes a seat support having the clamp portion
`
`that secures to a second track portion of the beam free of the first track portion so
`
`that interferences with the connectors and brackets is avoided. Id. Each seat can
`
`therefore be mounted at any location without regard to the positions of the
`
`connectors and brackets. Initial installation of seats is simplified, and the seats can
`
`be easily reconfigured for different audience events. See id. at 13:1-18, Figs. 6, 7.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00385
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Ex. 1001 Fig. 6
`
`Id. at Fig. 7.
`
`C.
`
`The Challenged Claims
`
`The ’858 patent, entitled “Seating System,” issued on July 11, 2006, and
`
`includes 36 claims, four of which are independent. Ex. 1001. Petitioner challenges
`
`only a subset of these claims as unpatentable. Specifically, the Petition asserts
`
`obviousness of independent claims 13, 20, and 33, as well as dependent claims 17-
`
`19, 21, 22, 27-32, 35, and 36 (hereinafter “the claims at issue”). Pet. at 1. All of the
`
`challenged claims recite elements not disclosed or suggested by any of the references
`
`identified by Petitioner.
`
`As noted in greater detail hereinafter claim 13, and claims 17-19 dependent
`
`thereon, recite a seating system including: “a plurality of brackets,” “a plurality of
`
`connectors,” “an elongate beam…including a lower portion” and “an upper portion
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00385
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`having a rear overhang with a rear undercut surface…and a front overhang…,” and
`
`“at least one seat support.” Each support includes: “a clamp portion adapted to be
`
`removably mounted to the upper portion free of the lower portion so that the seat
`
`base can be mounted at any position along a length of the beam free from
`
`interference with the connectors and brackets.” Also specified is that the clamp
`
`portion includes: “a return portion that is cooperatively shaped to fit against the
`
`upper portion and over the rear overhang in contact with the undercut surface.” Ex.
`
`1001 11:14-39.
`
`Claim 20, and claims 21, 22, and 27-32 dependent thereon specify a: “seating
`
`system comprising: an elongate beam including: a first track portion configured to
`
`be secured to a series of fixed connectors at any position along a length of the beam;
`
`and a second track portion extending integrally parallel to the first portion;” together
`
`with “a plurality of seats.” Each seat is recited as: “including at least one support
`
`with a clamp portion configured to mount to the second track portion of the beam at
`
`any position along the length of the beam… wherein the clamp portion remains free
`
`from the first track portion so as to avoid interfering with any of the fixed
`
`connectors.” These claims still further recite that: “the fixed connectors remain free
`
`from the second track portion” and: “the second track portion includes a pair of
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00385
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`  
`
`overhangs that extend outwardly…and the clamp portion…includes a return portion
`
`shaped to cooperatively fit over one of the overhangs.” Id. at 11:65 – 12:22.
`
`Claims 33, 35, and 36 recite a seating system having: “an elongate beam” and
`
`“a plurality of seats” each “including at least one support” similar to the elements
`
`specified by claim 20 and the claims dependent thereon. Each of claims 33, 35, and
`
`36 further recites: “(a) a clamp portion with a return portion shaped to cooperatively
`
`fit over a top of the beam and under the rear overhang at any position along the
`
`length of the beam” together with “(b) a seat rotation mechanism; and (c) a support
`
`member extending from the clamp portion to the seat rotation mechanism at an angle
`
`such that the seat rotation mechanism is disposed forwardly of the beam.” Id. at
`
`13:1-18.
`
`IV. The Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art as of September 21, 1999, would be a person
`
`who had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or a related field, plus
`
`1-2 years of experience designing structural devices such as that of the ’858 patent.
`
`Ex. 2001 ¶ 44.
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00385
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`V.
`
`THE PETITION RELIES ON DEFECTIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction Generally
`
`In an inter partes review, claims are given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144
`
`(2016). Even so, however, claims must be read in light of the plain meaning of the
`
`claims, the teachings of the specification, and the prosecution history of the patent.
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Straight
`
`Path IP Grp., Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O., 806 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`The Federal Circuit’s decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc), clarifies the claim construction hierarchy. Under Phillips,
`
`claim construction begins with the claims, moves to the written description portion
`
`of the specification and prosecution history, and ends with extrinsic evidence, such
`
`as dictionaries, technical treatises, and expert testimony. Id. at 1312-16. The Federal
`
`Circuit emphasizes the primacy of the claim terms themselves, as understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 1314. Indeed, the Federal Circuit has made
`
`clear that the claim construction inquiry “begins and ends in all cases with the actual
`
`words of the claim.” Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00385
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`B.
`
`The Claim Terms of the ’858 Patent
`
`The Board need not construe any of the recitations of the ’858 patent claims
`
`to determine whether inter partes review should be instituted. This is because the
`
`terms of the ’858 patent are sufficiently definite to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Also, Petitioner has failed to meet its evidentiary burden that the prior art teaches all
`
`of the elements of the claims at issue, or that a person skilled in the art would be
`
`motivated to combine the prior art. Nonetheless, to the extent that the Board
`
`disagrees, and for the sole purpose of deciding whether to institute inter partes
`
`review1 of the ’858 patent, Camatic accepts the interpretation of the terms
`
`“mounted,” “overhang,” “undercut surface,” “fastener,” “angular cross-sectional
`
`profile,” and “toggle” as set forth in the Petition. With respect to the remaining
`
`1 Camatic reserves the right to adopt different claim construction positions (1) in the
`
`present action should this Board institute inter partes review and/or (2) in the
`
`concurrent district court litigation given the principles enunciated by the Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit” or “CAFC”) in AWH v. Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00385
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`terms identified by Petitioner, Camatic proposes that such terms be construed as
`
`follows.
`
`“Return”
`
`Camatic requests that the Board construe “return” as “a portion of a structure
`
`that returns toward another portion or structure.” This is consistent with the
`
`specification, which states that: “the corresponding clamp portion 68 of the seat
`
`support 60 is shaped to have a return portion 69 which is adapted to pass over the
`
`rear overhang 17 to grip the beam.” Ex. 1001 5:44-47.
`
`“Track Portion”
`
`Camatic requests that the Board construe “track portion” as “a portion of a
`
`structure comprising a track at which mounting may be accomplished.” This
`
`definition is consistent with the specification, which states: “the beam includes lower
`
`portion or first track portion 18 and an upper portion or second track portion 19. The
`
`first track portion 18 is configured to be mounted to the brackets 20 with connectors
`
`30 (FIG. 5). The second track portion 19 is configured so that seat supports 60 can
`
`be mounted thereon.” Id. at 3:34-39.
`
`“Unitarily Formed”
`
`Camatic requests that the Board construe “unitarily formed” as “formed into
`
`a unit.” Besides being the plain meaning of the term (see Ex. 2003, Unitary,
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00385
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 2021 (Deluxe ed. 1998) (“of or
`
`relating to a unit”); see also Ex. 2004, Unitary, THE NEW OXFORD DICTIONARY OF
`
`ENGLISH 2023 (1998) (“of or relating to a unit or units”)), this construction is
`
`consistent with the specification, which distinguishes from Petitioner’s proffered
`
`construction of “integral.” As acknowledged by Petitioner, the Abstract recognizes
`
`at lines 6 and 7 thereof that: “[t]he beam preferably includes integral first and second
`
`track portions,” at least implying that other, non-integral embodiments are possible.
`
`Ex. 1001 at [57]. Also, as acknowledged by Petitioner, the specification notes that:
`
`“the extrusion comprising the beam has two effectively separate portions 18, 19.”
`
`Id. at 5:36-37. This statement refutes Petitioner’s argument that “unitarily formed”
`
`means “integral” and instead lends support to Camatic’s construction as noted above.
`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ART CITED BY PETITIONER
`
`As explained above the seating system claimed by the ’858 patent has a beam
`
`with an upper portion and a lower portion, wherein the lower portion is affixed to
`
`connectors. Seat supports having clamp portions are attached to the upper portion
`
`of the beam such that the seat supports are mountable at any location along the beam
`
`and are free from interfering with the connectors on the lower portion of the beam.
`
`The following provides a brief overview of the prior art relied upon by the
`
`Petitioner.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00385
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`  
`
`
`
`A. Head et al. (Ex. 1003)
`Head et al. (hereinafter “Head”) is directed to a plurality of seat units 18
`
`mounted on an elongate support member 12 comprising an “octagonal box beam.”
`
`See Ex. 1003 at 1-2, 5. In particular, Head discloses:
`
`[a] system comprising at least one elongate support member connected
`to extend between post members secured or adapted to be secured to a
`supporting structure. The elongate support member may be a
`continuous member or formed of two or more members disposed and
`interconnected end to end. It is preferably in the form of a box-section
`and serves as a structural spine for the system.
`Id. at 1-2.
`
`As seen with reference to Figs. 1 and 2, Head discloses a box beam 12 having
`
`four undercut channels 31, 33 disposed at diagonally opposite corners of the box
`
`beam 12.
`
`Ex. 1003, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00385
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`  
`
`Each of four connector pieces 32, 362 includes two pairs of connector lugs.
`
`Each of a plurality of posts 14 (seen in front view and identified in Fig. 1) includes
`
`an upper trapezoidal recess comprising two inclined portions each having an
`
`undercut channel 313 formed therein and each of a plurality of seat units 18 includes
`
`a lower trapezoidal recess comprising two inclined portions each having an undercut
`
`channel 40 formed therein. Head also discloses that:
`
`Diagonally opposed parallel faces of the octagonal box beam also have
`formed therein longitudinally extending undercut channels 33, enabling
`the beam to be secured to the post by connector pieces 32 having on
`opposite sides
`thereof connector
`lugs 34 of head-and-neck
`configuration which are received in the channels 31, 33 formed in
`adjacent surfaces of the post and box beam.
`The underside of each seat unit 18, in the illustrated embodiment, the
`lower end of each of the two seat side panels 19, is also formed with a
`trapezoidal recess or channel complementary with the upper portion of
`the box beam 18. Connector pieces 36 similar to connector pieces 32
`have on opposite sides thereof connecting lugs 38 which are received
`
`
`
`                                                            
`2 Of note, only two of the connector pieces are numbered. See id. at Fig. 2.
`
`3 In Head, reference numeral 31 is erroneously used to denote two different
`
`structures. See id.  
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00385
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`  
`
`in undercut channels 33, 40 formed in the inclined faces of the box
`beam 12 and the trapezoidal recesses respectively.
`
`
`Id. at 6. With respect to seat spacing on the box beam 18, Head specifies that:
`
`[A] row of seats 10 comprises an elongate support member 12
`supported at intervals upon posts 14 secured to the step 16 of a terrace
`or auditorium or the like. Seat units 18 mounted on the elongate support
`member are spaced such that the span between posts accommodates
`approximately 2.5 seat units. It will be understood, however, that the
`density of seating can be varied within the limits of the maximum
`uniformly distributed load capable of being carried by the seat support
`system.
`Id. at 5.4
`
`                                                            
`4 Also, the Head reference does not teach a beam that is operable judging by the
`
`cross sectional view of the beam and the seat portion. See id. Fig. 2; see also Ex.
`
`2001 ¶ 49. It is impossible to pivot the seat pan as shown in FIG. 2 because of
`
`interference with the beam. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 49. The shape of the beam is even more
`
`unclear when considered in light of the specification, which states that the beam is
`
`of “substantially uniform outer cross-section.” See id.
`
` 
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00385
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`  
`
`
`
`B. Allison (Ex. 1004)
`Allison discloses a single automotive vehicle seat. See Ex. 1004 Fig. 1. Each
`
`of first and second spaced channel members includes first and second tongues 22,
`
`24 that fit within grooves 18, 20 of a respective bracket 32.5 See id. at Fig. 2.
`
`Ex. 1004 at Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`The brackets 32 are fastened by rivets 42 that extend through a top 30 of the channel
`
`member. See id. at 2:36-41. Two structural members 36 (both seen in