Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`IRWIN SEATING COMPANY
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CAMATIC PROPRIETARY LIMITED
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-______
`Patent 7,073,858
`
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,073,858
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
`
`Formalities .................................................................................................... 2
`
`III. Overview and Relief Requested .................................................................... 3
`
`IV. Factual Background ...................................................................................... 4
`
`A. Declaration Evidence .......................................................................... 4
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Fisher Patent ................................................................................ 4
`
`Fisher’s Prosecution History ............................................................... 8
`
`V.
`
`Prior Art Supporting the Petition................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`Background of the Art ........................................................................ 9
`
`B. Head (PCT Application WO 92/20263) ............................................ 11
`
`C. Allison (U.S. Pat. No. 5,645,318) ..................................................... 13
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Burdick (U.S. Pat. No. 4,382,642) .................................................... 15
`
`Piretti (U.S. Pat. No. 3,762,765) ....................................................... 17
`
`F. Magnuson (U.S. Pat. No. 5,655,816)................................................. 17
`
`G. Head, Allison, Burdick, Piretti, and Magnuson Are
`Analogous to Fisher .......................................................................... 18
`
`H. Admitted Prior Art ............................................................................ 19
`
`VI. Claim Construction ..................................................................................... 20
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“Mounted” (claims 13, 17-19, 27, and 31-32) ................................... 20
`
`“Overhang” (claims 13, 20, 27-29, 33, and 35) ................................. 21
`
`“Undercut Surface” (claim 13) .......................................................... 21
`ii
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`“Fastener” (claims 13 and 27-28) ...................................................... 22
`
`“Return” (claims 13, 20, 27, 29, and 33) ........................................... 22
`
`“Track Portion” (claims 20-22, 26, 30, 33, and 36) ........................... 22
`
`“Unitarily Formed” (claim 21) .......................................................... 23
`
`“Angular Cross-Sectional Profile” (claim 28) ................................... 23
`
`“Toggle” (claim 35) .......................................................................... 24
`
`VII. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................... 25
`
`VIII. Specific Grounds for Invalidity ................................................................... 26
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 13, 17-22, and 27-32 Are Obvious
`Over Head, Allison, and Burdick. ..................................................... 26
`
`B. Motivation to Combine ..................................................................... 27
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`Claim 13 (Independent) Should Be Cancelled ................................... 37
`
`Claim 17 (Depends from Claim 13) Should Be Cancelled ................ 43
`
`Claim 18 (Depends from Claim 13) Should Be Cancelled ................ 43
`
`Claim 19 (Depends from Claim 13) Should Be Cancelled ................ 43
`
`Claim 20 (Independent) Should Be Cancelled ................................... 44
`
`Claim 21 (Depends from Claim 20) Should Be Cancelled ................ 48
`
`Claim 22 (Depends from Claim 20) Should Be Cancelled ................ 49
`
`Claim 27 (Depends from Claim 20) Should Be Cancelled ................ 50
`
`Claim 28 (Depends from Claim 27) Should Be Cancelled ................ 51
`
`Claim 29 (Depends from Claim 27) Should Be Cancelled ................ 51
`
`M. Claim 30 (Depends from Claim 20) Should Be Cancelled ................ 52
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`N.
`
`O.
`
`P.
`
`Claim 31 (Depends from Claim 20) Should Be Cancelled ................ 52
`
`Claim 32 (Depends from Claim 31) Should Be Cancelled ................ 53
`
`Ground 2: Claims 33 and 36 Are Obvious Over Head,
`Allison, and Burdick, in Further View of Piretti................................ 53
`
`Q. Motivation to Combine ..................................................................... 54
`
`R.
`
`S.
`
`T.
`
`Claim 33 (Independent) Should Be Cancelled ................................... 56
`
`Claim 36 (Depends from Claim 33) Should Be Cancelled ................ 58
`
`Ground 3: Claim 35 is Obvious Over Head, Burdick, and
`Allison, in Further View of Piretti and Magnuson. ............................ 59
`
`U. Motivation to Combine ..................................................................... 60
`
`V.
`
`Claim 35 (Depends from Claim 33) Should Be Cancelled ................ 62
`
`-iv-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`In re Fisher,
`427 F.2d 833 (C.C.P.A. 1970).......................................................................... 11
`
`Page(s)
`
`Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc.,
`827 F.2d 1524 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ........................................................................ 11
`
`-v-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner Irwin Seating Co. (“Irwin”) respectfully requests inter partes re-
`
`view for claims 13, 17-22, 27-33, and 35-36 of U.S. Patent No. 7,073,858 to Fisher
`
`(“Fisher,” attached as Ex. 1001).
`
`Fisher is directed to “beam” seating for use in stadia. Instead of directly bolt-
`
`ing seats to the ground or to risers, the seats in Fisher attach to an elongated beam,
`
`and the beam in turn connects to supports that attach to the ground. The inventors
`
`of Fisher did not claim to invent beam seating—the specification admits that this
`
`sort of seating was already known in the art.
`
`Instead, the inventors alleged that their claimed beam seating improved upon
`
`the prior art because it allowed a user to easily reposition seats after installation. To
`
`create this functionality, the inventors claimed beam seating where (i) the seats at-
`
`tached to only a top portion of the beam, (ii) the supports for the beam attached on-
`
`ly to a bottom portion of the beam, and thus (iii) a user could reposition the seats
`
`along the top portion of the beam without interfering with the supports attached to
`
`the bottom portion of the beam.
`
`But years before, others had noted the same problem and had provided the
`
`same solution. As in Fisher, PCT Application WO 92/20263 to Head (“Head”) dis-
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`closed beam seating where (i) the seats attached to only a top portion of the beam,
`
`(ii) the beam supports attached to only a bottom portion of the beam, and thus (iii)
`
`a user could reposition the seats along a top portion of the beam without interfering
`
`with the supports attached to a bottom portion of the beam.
`
`Fisher also claims particular variations as to the structural features of the
`
`beam, the type and shape of seat clamp to be used, and the location of the seat piv-
`
`ot. One of skill in the art would have (i) known that these variations were already
`
`present in the prior art, (ii) understood benefits to using these variations, and (iii)
`
`been motivated to employ these variations along with Head.
`
`For the reasons set forth below, Irwin requests that the Board hold claims 13,
`
`17-22, 27-33, and 35-36 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`
`Head and the other prior art included in this Petition.
`
`II.
`
`FORMALITIES
`A. Real Party In Interest. Irwin, Global Sourcing GB Ltd., and Blue Cube
`
`GB Ltd. are the Real Parties in Interest for the Petition.
`
`B. Related Matters. The ’858 patent is the subject of Camatic Pty. Ltd. v. Ir-
`
`win Seating Co., No. 3:16-CV-795 (N.D. Tex.). Camatic served that complaint on
`
`Irwin on June 23, 2016.
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel. Irwin identifies Anthony Garza, Reg. No.
`
`57,334, as Lead Counsel, and David Judson, Reg. No. 30,467, as Back-up Counsel.
`
`Powers of attorney are submitted with this Petition.
`
`D. Service Information. Anthony Garza, CCRG PLLC, 3333 Lee Pkwy. Ste.
`
`460, Dallas TX 75219, Tel: 214-521-6400, Fax: 214-764-8392. David Judson,
`
`15950 Dallas Pkwy. Ste. 225, Dallas TX 75248, Tel: 214-939-7659, Fax: 253-369-
`
`3141. Please direct all correspondence to agarza@ccrglaw.com with a courtesy
`
`copy sent to IrwinIPR@ccrglaw.com.
`
`E. Grounds for Standing. Irwin certifies that Fisher is available for inter
`
`partes review and that Irwin is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes
`
`review on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`G. Fees. The Commissioner is authorized to charge all required fees to the
`
`Deposit Account for Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza.
`
`III. OVERVIEW AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Irwin requests that the Board cancel claims 13, 17-22, 27-33, and 35-36 of
`
`Fisher as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This petition, supported by the ac-
`
`companying Declaration of George Simons (Ex. 1002) demonstrates a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the challenged claims are not patentable and that Irwin will prevail
`
`with respect to at least one challenged claim. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Irwin’s challenge is based
`
`on the following references, which are each prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`102(b) or 102(e):
`
`1. Head (Ex. 1003);
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 5,645,318 to Allison (“Allison”) (Ex. 1004);
`
`3. U.S. Patent No. 4,382,642 to Burdick (“Burdick”) (Ex. 1005);
`
`4. U.S. Patent No. 3,762,765 to Piretti (“Piretti”) (Ex. 1006); and
`
`5. U.S. Patent No. 5,655,816 to Magnuson (“Magnuson”) (Ex. 1007).
`
`Irwin’s challenge also relies on statements in Fisher about the prior art.
`
`IV.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`A.
`Declaration Evidence
`Irwin attaches the declaration of George Simons. See Ex. 1002. Mr. Simons
`
`provides opinions on the content of the prior art, the level of skill of a person hav-
`
`ing ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, and what would be
`
`obvious to such a person.
`
`The Fisher Patent
`B.
`Fisher discloses “beam” seating system for use in stadia or auditoriums.
`
`Specifically, Fisher describes a system comprising (i) a longitudinal beam, where
`
`(ii) the beam is “fixed relative to the ground,” and (iii) seats are mounted to the
`
`beam “at any selected longitudinal position along the beam.” Ex. 1001 Abstract.
`-4-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`Fisher acknowledges, however, that prior-art stadium seating already includ-
`
`ed these features. Fisher recognized that prior-art stadium seating is “usually based
`
`about beams or the like,” where the beam “is connected either directly or indirectly
`
`to a floor or vertical riser,” and seats are connected to the beam “by way of a clamp
`
`or the like.” Id. 1:23-30. Fisher admits that “individual seats can be removed and
`
`replaced,” but maintains that “the actual arrangement of seats is basically fixed.”
`
`Id. 1:32-33. Fisher disparages this prior art as “very inflexible” and “usually de-
`
`signed for the particular stadium in a particular configuration and cannot be varied
`
`from this.” Id. 1:40-42.
`
`Fisher describes an “object” of his invention as “a seating system whereby
`
`the location of the seats is very much more flexible than has previously been the
`
`case.” Ex. 1001 1:46-48 (although Fisher identifies this aim as “one object” of the
`
`invention, it is the only object disclosed in the summary of the invention). Fisher
`
`then describes a system comprising (i) seats, beam supports, and a beam with two
`
`portions, where (ii) an upper portion of the beam connects to the seats, (iii) a lower
`
`portion of the beam connects to the beam supports, and (iv) the two portions of the
`
`beam are arranged so that the connection of the seats to the beam is not obstructed
`
`by the connection of the beam supports to the beam, where (v) seats can be located
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`“at any required position along the beam,” and (vi) the seats have clamps that “fa-
`
`cilitate selective repositioning after installation.” Id. 1:49-53, 2:34-35.
`
`The particular beam disclosed in Fisher’s figures includes an upper portion
`
`17 of the beam that receives clamps from seats, and a lower portion 18 of the beam
`
`that includes a channel to receive supports. See id. Figs. 3, 5. As pictured, a user
`
`may detach and move the seat clamps without interfering with the supports that
`
`connect the beam to the floor:
`
`Additionally, Fisher claims a beam with particular features: a beam having
`
`(i) a first and second “track portion” (instead of “upper” and “lower” portions of
`
`the beam), and (ii) a front and rear overhang, as seen at Figs. 3 and 5:
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`Finally, Fisher claims a connection between the seats and beam that consists
`
`of a (i) clamp, (ii) including a fastener (sometimes referred to as a “toggle”) and a
`
`return, (iii) that fits around the top and bottom of an overhang, as seen at Figs. 3
`
`and 8:
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`Fisher’s Prosecution History
`C.
`Camatic filed its provisional application in September 1999, followed by a
`
`PCT application in September 2000.1 The preliminary examination report stated
`
`that the claims “are not novel and do not involve an inventive step over prior art.”
`
`Ex. 1022 at 5. In reaching that conclusion, the report recognized that King (at-
`
`tached as Ex. 1008) disclosed a system where a seat support attaches at any posi-
`
`tion along the beam, and noted that the additional features of the claims “relate on-
`
`ly to conventional manufacturing techniques or are features which are typical in
`
`chairs/seats and are therefore considered not to contribute to novelty and/or in-
`
`ventive step.” Ex. 1022 at 5.
`
`Camatic did not convince the Examiner otherwise in Camatic’s first U.S. na-
`
`tional-stage application (No. 09/914,231). The Examiner rejected all pending
`
`claims four times based on obviousness combinations and anticipatory references
`
`including stadium-seating art (including Hoven, attached as Ex. 1009) combined
`
`with other beam-seating art (including Hock, attached as Ex. 1010, and Piretti). Ex.
`
`1011 at 5-8; Ex. 1012 at 4-6; Ex. 1013 at 3-5; Ex. 1014 at 3-5. Camatic repeatedly
`
`1 Because Camatic filed its provisional application in September 1999, this petition
`
`considers one of skill in the art as of that date—September 1999.
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`argued that the prior art did not disclose a crucial feature of the invention—seats
`
`that are “temporarily connected to the beam so that the individual seats are able to
`
`be located, and easily relocated, at any point along the beam in an unrestricted
`
`manner.” Ex. 1015 at 6 (May 2004 Response); see also Ex. 1016 at 6 (October
`
`2003 Response); Ex. 1017 at 6 (May 2003 Response). As noted above, the exam-
`
`iner considered and rejected this argument three times. Ultimately, Camatic filed
`
`for a continuation rather than continue prosecuting the ’231 application.
`
`The only office action issued on Camatic’s continuation application allowed
`
`a subset of Camatic’s claims (including independent claim 16) without citing to
`
`any obviousness combinations. Ex. 1018 at 3-5. Camatic responded to the office
`
`action by adding two additional independent claims (claims 23 and 36), which the
`
`Examiner allowed without further comment. Ex. 1019 at 5-8 (Response), Ex. 1020
`
`at 4 (Notice of Allowance). Here, Irwin challenges independent claims 16, 23, and
`
`36 of Fisher (the resulting patent) along with various dependent claims.
`
`V.
`
`PRIOR ART SUPPORTING THE PETITION
`A.
`Background of the Art
`Beam seating was well known prior to Fisher. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 16-18; Ex. 1001
`
`1:24-33. One of skill in the art understood a design benefit of beam seating—by
`
`clamping seats to a beam, a designer avoids the need to plan out or specify a par-
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`ticular location for each chair to be installed in a stadium or auditorium (by, for ex-
`
`ample, noting the exact location of each seat in stadium plans), and need only in-
`
`stead determine where to place various beams that will ultimately support that seat-
`
`ing. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 18; see Ex. 1003 at 1.
`
`Of course, the use and benefits of different beam features, such as flanges,
`
`tracks, and channels, are well known to structural designers. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19-24.
`
`Those of skill in the art know the purpose and function of using different beam fea-
`
`tures and would understand how to implement those features when designing beam
`
`seating, beam furniture, or any other sort of structure involving structural beams.
`
`See id. ¶¶ 19-22. Replacing a portion of a beam with a differing type of flange,
`
`track, channel, or other feature would be a predictable use of prior-art elements ac-
`
`cording to their established functions. See id. ¶¶ 20, 44, 46.
`
`Additionally, those of skill in the art understand that there are myriad ways
`
`(with attendant benefits) to attach items to beams, including clamps with or with-
`
`out toggles, tongue-and-groove connectors, and post-and-slot connectors. Ex. 1002
`
`¶¶ 21-22. Those of skill in the art would also understand that there are many differ-
`
`ent ways (with attendant benefits) that each of those attachments may interact with
`
`features on a beam. See id. Replacing a connection to a beam with a differing type
`
`of connector or differently shaped connector to achieve benefits associated with
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`that connector would be a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their
`
`established functions. Id. ¶ 21, 44, 46.
`
`Ultimately, in structural design, those of skill in the art know how to predict-
`
`ably substitute analogous structural and functional features. Ex. 1002 ¶ 43, 46. In
`
`this vein, the Federal Circuit has characterized the mechanical arts as “predicta-
`
`ble.” Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc., 827 F.2d 1524, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1987);
`
`see also In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (“In cases involving pre-
`
`dictable factors, such as mechanical or electrical elements, a single embodiment
`
`provides broad enablement in the sense that, once imagined, other embodiments
`
`can be made without difficulty and their performance characteristics predict-
`
`ed by resort to known scientific laws.”)
`
`Head (PCT Application WO 92/20263)
`B.
`Head was published on November 26, 1992, and it is prior art to Fisher un-
`
`der 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Head discloses an adjustable beam-seating system for use
`
`in a stadium. Ex. 1003 at 1.
`
`Head discloses most of the features recited in the subject Fisher claims. Spe-
`
`cifically, Head describes a seating system where (i) seats 18 are mounted to a beam
`
`12, (ii) the beam 12 is mounted to posts 14 that connect to the ground, and (iii) the
`
`system is structured so the seats 18 may be reconfigured and moved along the
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`beam 12, from time to time, without interfering with the posts 14 connected to the
`
`ground. Ex. 1003 at 3, Figs. 1-2.
`
`As Mr. Simons explains, the beam further includes (i) an upper portion de-
`
`fining two channels that are used to mount seats and (ii) a lower portion defining
`
`two separate channels that are used to mount the beam to posts that connect to the
`
`ground. Ex. 1002 ¶ 30, see Ex. 1003 Fig. 2. Head discloses connectors 32 that are
`
`shaped to fit and slide into the upper and lowers channels of beam 12. Ex. 1003 at
`
`2, 5-6, Fig. 2, cls. 17-19, 22, 24-26. The structure shown at Figures 1-2 permits the
`
`seats to be moved along the beam without interfering with the posts that connect to
`
`the ground. See id. Figs. 1-2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 30. Head also recognizes that the beam
`
`may be differently configured. The beam may include “lug members” to engage
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`the posts, rather than channels, Ex. 1003 at 2, and the beam may have differing
`
`cross sections, id. at cl. 6 (regular polygon), cl. 11 (box section). See Ex. 1002 ¶¶
`
`30-33.
`
`Head specifically addresses the use of temporary connections between the
`
`seats and the beam to allow for reconfiguration as desired (the “object” of the
`
`Fisher patent): “It will be understood that the slidably engageable connection per-
`
`mits ready adjustment of the position of the seat units in the various rows of seat-
`
`ing, for example, so that the view of the occupant is not obstructed or to increase or
`
`reduce the density of seating as may be required from time to time.” Ex. 1003 at 3.
`
`Allison (U.S. Pat. No. 5,645,318)
`C.
`Allison issued on November 26, 1992, and it is prior art to Fisher under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e). Among other features, Allison discloses a tongue-and-groove
`
`connection for connecting a seat back to a seat frame. Ex. 1004 Abstract.
`
`In particular, Allison discloses a seat frame 14 comprising two beams. Ex.
`
`1004 Fig. 2. The upper portion of each beam includes tongues 20 and 18 (with cor-
`
`responding undercut surfaces) that run along opposite sides of the beam. Id. Figs.
`
`2-3. Back frame 14 is attached to bracket 32. Id. Fig. 1. Bracket 32 mounts to seat
`
`frame 14 by cooperatively fitting against the upper portion of the tongues and con-
`
`tacting the undercut surface of the tongues. Id. 2:17-26, Fig. 2. In particular, brack-
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`et 32 comprises (i) groove 24 that fits around tongue 20 and (ii) groove 22 that fits
`
`around tongue 18. Id. Allison also uses a rivet 42 to fasten the bracket to the beam.
`
`Id.
`
`Allison also discloses a lower rail 44 that includes T-shaped channels de-
`
`fined by C-shaped sides 52 and L-shaped posts 50. Id. 2:42-55, Fig. 3. The lower
`
`portion of each beam includes T-shaped slides 48. Id. The lower rail connects with
`
`the beam by sliding the beam’s T-shaped slides 48 into the lower rail’s T-shaped
`
`channel defined by C-shaped sides 52 and L-shaped posts 50. Id.
`
`Irwin contends that Figures 2-3 of Allison disclose a beam with (i) a first
`
`track portion (lower portion) with channels, (ii) a second track portion (upper por-
`
`tion), and (iii) a front and rear overhang that run along the beam:
`
`Further, Fig. 2 discloses a bracket connection with (i) a portion that fits around the
`
`front overhang, and (ii) a portion that fits around the rear overhang:
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`Burdick (U.S. Pat. No. 4,382,642)
`D.
`Burdick issued on May 10, 1983, and it is prior art to Fisher under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e). Burdick discloses a beam-furniture system comprising a rigid support
`
`beam with selectively removable furniture components attached thereto using vari-
`
`ous types of clamps and bracket assemblies. Ex. 1005 Abstract, 2:58-65, 3:33-45.
`
`Burdick discloses a beam 101 supported by pedestals 102. Id. Fig. 2. The
`
`cross-section of the disclosed beam includes two rounded flanges 128 and two rec-
`
`tangularly shaped flanges 129. Id. 6:12-30, Fig. 3B. The flanges are “utilized to
`
`support various furniture system elements.” Id. 6:19-22.
`
`Burdick discloses connecting assemblies to attach furniture items to the
`
`beam/flanges. Ex. 1005 12:41-13:22, 14:1-18. Burdick nevertheless notes that
`
`“connecting assemblies of different functional design . . . can be utilized with the
`
`support beam 101,” and that particular items could be mounted directly to the
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`beam “by means of securing clamps or the like.” Id. 12:57-13:16, 13:42-45, 14:14-
`
`18, see also 7:25-30, Fig. 22. Burdick recognizes that the “bracket assemblies can
`
`be attached to the flanges at any of a continuum of locations along the first support
`
`beam.” Id. 3:10-13, see also id. 7:65-8:3, 9:8-14, cl. 2. Burdick teaches the use of
`
`brackets that are shaped to fit the beam. See Ex. 1005 6:67-73 (describing bracket
`
`“shaped in a manner reflective of the shape of the previously described rounded
`
`upper flanges 128 of beam 101 and cooperable therewith); 11:28-31 (same); cl. 12
`
`(requiring bracket assembly in a shape reflective of the beam).
`
`For example, Irwin contends that Burdick discloses a clamp (with a return
`
`and moveable fastener) that is cooperatively shaped to attach to flanges of a beam
`
`at Figure 5:
`
`-16-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`Piretti (U.S. Pat. No. 3,762,765)
`E.
`Piretti issued on October 2, 1973, and is prior art to Fisher under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e). Piretti was of record during Fisher’s prosecution.
`
`At Figures 1-3, Piretti discloses beam seating with a tip-up seat. Ex. 1006
`
`Figs. 1-3. The seat pivots at disc 4, which houses the seat-rotation means. Id. 2:24-
`
`30. The seat-rotation means is located at the end of front arm 2b, which is at an an-
`
`gle from the beam 9. Id. Fig. 1. The seat-rotation means is thus located forward of
`
`the seat’s attachment to the beam 9. Id. 2:14-30; Fig. 1.
`
`F. Magnuson (U.S. Pat. No. 5,655,816)
`Magnuson issued on August 12, 1997, and it is prior art to the patent under
`
`at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Magnuson discloses seat frames that mount to supports
`
`through a “releasable fastener system operative to releasably fasten respective sup-
`
`port brackets to respective [seat] frames at a variety of locations on the frame.” Ex.
`
`1007 1:34-45. As shown at Figure 2, pedestal assembly 22 mounts to seat frame 30
`
`by passing nuts 66 through channels in cross rails 36 and 38. Ex. 1007 Figs. 2, 9A,
`
`9B. The nuts are passed upward through slots of the front and rear cross rails to po-
`
`sition the nuts in the grooves, and then the nuts are turned and fastened into place.
`
`Id. 5:11-36; cl. 5.
`
`-17-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`Irwin contends that the toggle feature of the nut is shown at Figures 9A and
`
`9B.
`
`G.
`
`Head, Allison, Burdick, Piretti, and Magnuson Are Analo-
`gous to Fisher
`Each of Head, Allison, Burdick, Piretti, and Magnuson are in the same field
`
`of endeavor as Fisher (beam furniture), and thus are analogous to Fisher. Ex. 1002
`
`¶¶ 30, 34-37. The teachings of these references thus are properly combinable as
`
`will be seen. Fisher discloses a furniture item (a seat) that is attached to a load-
`
`bearing horizontal beam. Id. ¶ 26; Ex. 1001 Fig. 1. Head, Allison, Burdick, and
`
`Piretti also disclose furniture items attached to a load-bearing horizontal beam. Ex.
`
`1002 ¶¶ 30, 34-37; see Ex. 1003 Figs. 1-2 (seats), Ex. 1004 Figs. 1, 3 (seat-back
`
`support), Ex. 1005 Fig. 22 (tabletops and file cabinets), Ex. 1006 Figs. 2-3 (seats).
`
`Magnuson does not attach seat frames to a separate load-bearing horizontal beam.
`-18-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`Nevertheless, like Fisher, Magnuson is directed to seating systems that allow for
`
`releaseable attachments between load-bearing horizontal beams (integral with the
`
`disclosed seat frames) and their supports. Ex. 1001 2:29-34, Fig. 3; Ex. 1007 1:35-
`
`46, 1: 51-54; Ex. 1002 ¶ 37.
`
`Further, each of Head, Allison, Burdick, Piretti, and Magnuson are reasona-
`
`bly pertinent to the problems and disclosure of Fisher, and are thus analogous to
`
`Fisher. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30, 33-37. Head and Piretti suggest features for implementing
`
`beam seating, as in Fisher. Id. ¶¶ 30, 36; Ex. 1001 at 1; Ex. 1006 at 1:14-31. Bur-
`
`dick and Allison disclose (i) features for structural beams that allow for attachment
`
`of other items, and (ii) the shape and identity of particular attachments to that
`
`beam—both features identified in Fisher. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 34-35; Ex. 1004 1:56-2:15;
`
`Ex. 1005 at 3:7-61; Ex. 1001 at 3:34-55, 5:44-58. Magnuson discloses a releasable
`
`toggle fastener that allows for flexibility in installing seating, an aim described in
`
`Fisher. Ex. 1002 ¶ 37; Ex. 1007 1:35-46, 1:51-54, Figs. 9A-9B; Ex. 1001 5:51-58,
`
`Fig. 8.
`
`Admitted Prior Art
`H.
`The “Background of the Invention” section of Fisher admits the use of
`
`clamps to secure stadium seats to beams in the prior art. In particular, Fisher states
`
`that “[s]tadium seating is usually based about beams or the like . . . individual seats
`
`-19-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`are then connected to the beam by way of a clamp or the like which clamp has one
`
`component on the seat and one component which can be placed thereover on the
`
`other side of the beam and the two can be interconnected.” Ex. 1001 1:24-30.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Because Fisher has not expired, the Board should apply the broadest reason-
`
`able interpretation of the claims, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). To facilitate
`
`the Board’s review of this Petition, Irwin offers proposed claim constructions, be-
`
`low. 2
`
`“Mounted” (claims 13, 17-19, 27, and 31-32)
`A.
`Irwin requests that the Panel construe the term “mount” as “attach directly or
`
`indirectly.” The specification states that (i) brackets mount to a fixed surface, (ii)
`
`connectors are mountable to those brackets, (iii) a beam is adapted to be mount-
`
`ed to those connectors, and (iv) clamps removably mount to the beam. Ex. 1001
`
`2:16-30. The term “mount” is used generically to mean “attach.” See Figs. 1, 3, 5.
`
`2 Irwin’s claim interpretation presented herein (under the BRI standard) should not
`
`be used as constituting, in whole or in part, Irwin’s claim interpretation (under
`
`Phillips) for the purposes of the district-court litigation.
`
`-20-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`Further, the specification states that a portion of the beam “is configured to
`
`be mounted to the brackets 20 with connectors 30.” Id. 3:34-39. This example
`
`shows that the beam may “mount” the brackets indirectly through connectors 30.
`
`See also id. 2:29-33 (seat can be “mounted” on beam through clamps); cl. 13
`
`(same). “Mount” thus includes both direct and indirect attachments.
`
`“Overhang” (claims 13, 20, 27-29, 33, and 35)
`B.
`Irwin requests that the Panel construe the term “overhang” as a “projection.”
`
`The verb “overhang” has a plain meaning—to “hang over” something. See Ex.
`
`1021 at 964 (“to hang or be suspended over.”). The noun “overhang” means a pro-
`
`jection that can hang over something else. Id. (“something that extends or juts out
`
`over; projection”). The specification does not explicitly define overhang, but labels
`
`portions 15 and 17 as “overhangs,” and notes that the overhangs define undercut
`
`surfaces. Ex. 1001 Abstract, 5:36-43.
`
`“Undercut Surface” (claim 13)
`C.
`Irwin requests that the Panel construe “undercut surface” as “a surface under
`
`an overhang.” The abstract states that the an “undercut surface” is defined by over-
`
`hangs: “The second track portion is preferably shaped to include a rear overhang
`
`and a front overhang defining oppositely directly undercut surfaces on which
`
`the seat support is securely mounted.” Ex. 1001 Abstract.
`
`-21-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`“Fastener” (claims 13 and 27-28)
`D.
`Irwin requests that the Panel construe “fastener” as “something that fastens.”
`
`See Ex. 1021 at 485 (listing “fastener” as a variant of “fasten”) The specification
`
`identifies fastener 72 as (i) a “toggle fastener,” that (ii) can be tightened by way of
`
`a bolt 73, (iii) to prevent any movement of the seat. Ex. 1001 5:51-68. The claims
`
`show that a fastener (i) can selectively secure under an overhang, and (ii) can grip
`
`an overhang. Id. cls. 7-8, 13, 27-28. This disclosure is consistent with the broadest
`
`reasonable plain meaning of the term “fastener”—“something that fastens.”
`
`“Return” (claims 13, 20, 27, 29, and 33)
`E.
`Irwin requests that the Panel construe “return” as “a portion of a structure
`
`that projects in a different direction in reference to another portion.” See Ex. 1021
`
`at 1151 (“the continuation of a molding, projection, etc., in a different direction”).
`
`The specification does not define “return,” but provides two examples: (i) rear
`
`overhang 17 and (ii) return portion 69. Ex. 1001 5:36-47. Rear overhang 17 pro-
`
`jects in a different direction from body of beam 10, and return portion 69 projects
`
`in a direction different from clamp portion 52.
`
`“Track Portion” (claims 20-22, 26, 30, 33, and 36)
`F.
`Irwin requests that the Board construe “track portion” as “a portion of a strip
`
`or rail along which something can be mounted or moved.” See Ex. 1021 at 1412 (a
`
`“strip or rail along which something, as lighting or a curtain, may be mounted or
`-22-
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2016-_____
`
`moved”). This definition is consistent with the specification, which notes that (i)
`
`first track portion 18 is “configured to be mounted to the brackets 20 with connect-
`
`ors 30),” and (ii) second track portion 19 is “configured so