Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: September 5, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PLASTIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAXCHIEF INVESTMENTS LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`____________
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, and
`ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: September 5, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PLASTIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAXCHIEF INVESTMENTS LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`____________
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, and
`ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Plastic Development Group, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to
`institute an inter partes review of claims 1–6, 9–11, 14–18, and 22–24 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,622,644 B2 (“the ’644 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”).
`Maxchief Investments Limited (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration
`of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner
`has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the claims
`challenged in the Petition. For the reasons expressed below, we institute an
`inter partes review of claims 1–6, 9–11, 14–18, and 22–24 of the ’644
`patent.
`B. Additional Proceedings
`Petitioner states that the ’644 patent is asserted against it in Civil
`Action No. 3:16-cv-00063 in the United States District Court, Eastern
`District of Tennessee. Pet. iv.
`C. The ’644 Patent
`The ’644 patent (Ex. 1001), titled “Collapsible Table,” describes a
`collapsible table where the leg supports of the table are “collaps[ible] from a
`use position to a storage position.” Ex. 1001, 1:8–9. Figure 7 of the ’644
`patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 7 of the ’644 patent, above, illustrates collapsible table 10 having one
`leg assembly 16 collapsed in a storage position and opposing leg assembly
`14 extended in the use position.
`By way of example, leg assembly 14 includes cross member 14d that
`is pivotally connected to frame members 18, 20. The leg assembly is
`supported further by brace structure 28, which is in turn pivotally connected
`to one end 24b of support bar 24. Id. at 4:36–48. The opposite end 24a of
`support bar 24 is pivotally connected to pivot bar 32 situated in a channel
`formed in projections 34, 36 in the bottom of the table. Id. at 4:67–5: 9.
`Support bar 24 rotates around pivot bar 32 permitting leg assembly 14 to
`rotate between the use and storage positions. Id. at 5:31–38.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 10, 14, 21, and 22 are
`independent. Each of claims 2–6, 9–11, 15–18, and 23–24 depends from its
`respective independent claim. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter
`and is reproduced below:
`1. A collapsible table comprising:
`a table top having:
`a substantially planar top surface;
`a bottom surface opposite the top surface; and
`opposing first and second channels formed into the bottom
`surface;
`a first pivot bar disposed within the first channel;
`a second pivot bar disposed within the second channel;
`opposing first and second frame members secured to the bottom
`surface of the table top;
`opposing first and second leg assemblies disposed between and
`pivotally attached to the first and second frame members, the
`first and second leg assemblies movable between a use
`position and a storage position;
`a first support assembly for maintaining the first leg assembly in
`the use position, the first support assembly comprising:
`a first brace structure having a first central pivotal attachment
`point and at least one first distal pivotal attachment point,
`the at least one first distal pivotal attachment point
`pivotally attached to the first leg assembly; and
`a first support bar having first and second ends, the second
`end of the first support bar pivotally attached to the first
`central pivotal attachment point of the first brace structure,
`and the first end of the first support bar pivotally attached
`to the first pivot bar; and
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`
`
`a second support assembly for maintaining the second leg
`assembly in the use position, the second support assembly
`comprising:
`a second brace structure having a second central pivotal
`attachment point and at least one second distal pivotal
`attachment point, the at least one second distal pivotal
`attachment point pivotally attached to the second leg
`assembly; and
`a second support bar having first and second ends, the second
`end of the second support bar pivotally attached to the
`second central pivotal attachment point of the second
`brace structure, and the first end of the second support bar
`pivotally attached to the second pivot bar.
`E. The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
`following specific grounds.1
`References
`Simpson,2 either alone or in view of
`Stanford3
`Stanford in view of the general knowledge
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`
`Basis Claims Challenged
`§ 103 1–6, 9–11, 14–18,
`and 22–24
`§ 103 1–6, 9–11, 14–18,
`and 22–24
`
`
`1 Petitioner supports its challenge with a Declaration of Gregory W. Davis,
`Ph.D. (Ex. 1005). See infra.
`2 Ex. 1003, U.S. Patent No. 6,371,034 B1 (April 16, 2002). Simpson is
`asserted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as of its filing date, May 22,
`2000. Pet. 1.
`3 Ex. 1004, U.S. Patent No. 6,431,092 B1 (Aug. 13, 2002). Stanford is
`asserted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as of its filing date, August 9,
`2000. Pet. 2.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`II.
`A. Legal Standard
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016)
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard).
`Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.,
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`B. Claim 14 – Asserted Typographical Error
`The parties identify a claim construction issue relating to what is
`asserted to be a typographical error in independent claim 14. According to
`Petitioner, claim 14 wrongly recites, “the second end of the first support bar
`pivotally attached to the first pivot bar” and “the second end of the second
`support bar pivotally attached to the second pivot bar.” Ex. 1001, 11:20–25.
`Both Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that these phrases should be
`understood as “the first end of the first support bar pivotally attached to the
`first pivot bar” and “the first end of the second support bar pivotally attached
`to the second pivot bar.” Pet. 4; Prelim. Resp. 4.
`The parties agree that the above interpretation is the correct one, and
`we find that their proposed interpretation is consistent with the language
`recited in the other independent claims 1, 10, and 22, as well as the written
`description and drawings in the ’644 patent. See Pet 4 (citing Ex. 1001,
`Figs. 2–4, 6–7, 2:34–46; 2:47–49; 4:50–55; 5:27–31; 6:7–12; 7:3–6).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`
`Further, Patent Owner has filed with the Board a Motion to Request a
`Certificate of Correction to remedy this apparent error in claim 14. See
`Paper 8. Based on this evidence and Patent Owner’s actions seeking to file a
`request for a Certificate of Correction, for purposes of this Decision, we
`address claim 14 and its dependent claims 15–18 in each ground consistent
`with the parties’ proposed understanding.
`III. ANALYSIS
`A. Threshold issue – § 325(d)
`Patent Owner argues, initially, that Ground 2 of the Petition should be
`denied because the Stanford reference relied upon by Petitioner was
`considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the application that
`became the ’644 patent. Prelim. Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 2002, 61).
`The statute gives the Director discretion to take into account whether,
`and reject a petition because, the same or substantially the same prior art or
`arguments previously were presented to the Office. See 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`That the primary reference in Ground 2, Stanford, was considered prior art
`in the prosecution record of the ’644 patent is a factor which the Board “may
`take into account” according to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Patent Owner, however,
`does not show that the Examiner of the application that became the ’644
`patent substantively considered Stanford, nor does Patent Owner
`persuasively explain that the Examiner considered “substantially the same
`. . . arguments,” as Petitioner presents here, another factor which the Board
`“may take into account” according to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`Patent Owner’s evidence that Stanford was considered during
`prosecution is merely the initialed line in the Applicant’s IDS submitted
`during prosecution. See Ex. 1002, 61. In addition, we note that the
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`
`prosecution history focused substantively on 35 U.S.C. § 112(2) issues and
`an obviousness rejection over a different reference, Fieldwick et al., U.S.
`Patent No 6,374,756. See id. at 35–36 (“Claim 18 is rejected . . . as being
`unpatentable over Fieldwick et al.”). Because neither Stanford nor any
`arguments relating to Stanford were substantively addressed by Applicant or
`the Examiner during the underlying prosecution of the ’644 patent, we are
`unpersuaded that “substantially the same arguments” have been presented
`here by Petitioner as were previously presented to the Office during
`prosecution. See 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`We turn now to Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability and
`Patent Owner’s arguments in its Preliminary Response to determine whether
`Petitioner has met the threshold standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`B. Claims 1–6, 9–11, 14–18, and 22–24— Alleged obviousness over
`Simpson
`As Ground 1, Petitioner asserts that claims 1–6, 9–11, 14–18, and 22–
`24 would have been obvious over Simpson or Simpson in view of Stanford.
`Pet. 6–53. Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on
`its assertion that claims 1–6, 9–11, 14–18, and 22–24 are unpatentable based
`on Ground 1 for the reasons explained below.
`1. Simpson
`Simpson discloses folding table 10 including one-piece monolithic
`plastic top 11 having a reinforcing rib structure and a pair of pivotable leg
`assemblies 20, as shown in annotated Figure 4 reproduced below. Ex. 1003,
`Abst.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4 of Simpson, above, illustrates a folding table having opposite
`leg assemblies 20, with the left-side leg assembly (partially) shown in a use
`position, and the right-side leg assembly in a stored position. Id. at 3:24–33.
`Top leg member 96 of each leg assembly 20 is pivotally connected to top 11
`via mounting socket 22, allowing each leg assembly to rotate between the
`use and stored position. Id. at 8:27–36. The mounting socket is connected
`to rail 71. Id. at 8:14–17, Figs. 8, 11.
`Figures 2 and 3 of Simpson are reproduced below.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`
`
`
`
`Simpson’s Figures 2 and 3 illustrate, in dashed lines, leg assemblies 20
`deployed in a use position. Each leg assembly is supported by strut
`arrangement 108 including pivot shaft 109 fixed to the underside of table top
`11 in a series of channels 55A formed on the underside of table top 11 in
`support plates 53A. Id. at 5:46–49, Fig. 5. Center brace 117 is pivotally
`connected at one end to pivot shaft 109 and pivotally connected at an
`opposing second end by a pair of links 118 (shown highlighted in yellow).
`Id. at 8:51–9:1. Also, Simpson explains that “[t]he outer terminal ends of
`links 118 are pivotally connected to the inwardly facing sides of the
`respective cross members 99 of the respective leg 95.” Id. at 9:1–4.
`2. Claim 1
`Petitioner argues that Simpson discloses a “collapsible table”
`including a table top (top 11), a first and second pivot bars (pivot bars 109),
`a first and second frame members (rails 71) and first and second leg
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`
`assemblies (leg assemblies 20) that “are ‘swingably movable between a
`storage position wherein they directly underlie the top part and an upright or
`use position. . . .’” Pet. 6–14 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:28-33; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 58–61).
`Petitioner contends also that the claimed first and second “support
`assembly” including a respective first and second “brace structure” and
`“support bar,” are disclosed by Simpson’s strut arrangement 108 including
`Y-shaped pair of links 118 and center brace 117. Id. at 15–24.
`Petitioner argues further that the elements of Simpson’s structure are
`connected together, and function, in essentially the same way as the claimed
`invention. For example, Petitioner explains how Simpson’s mounting
`sockets 22 pivotally connect leg assemblies 20 to rails 71 so that leg
`assemblies 20 can pivot between “a storage position (i.e., folded into the
`table) and the other leg assembly is in a use position (i.e., extended away
`from the table).” Id. at 14. Petitioner alleges, essentially in the alternative,
`that it would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art, as shown by
`Stanford, to attach leg assemblies directly to rails 71, without mounting
`sockets 22. Pet. 16–18 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:4–10, 58–65, Fig. 2; Ex. 1005
`¶¶ 65–69).
`Patent Owner does not provide substantive arguments relating to
`claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. 5 (For Ground 1, Petitioner “only presents
`arguments with respect to dependent claims 3, 9, and 23.”). Our review of
`Simpson’s structure and function is consistent with Petitioner’s assertions
`that Simpson teaches the same or similar structure and function as recited in
`claim 1. See Pet. 6–26 (citing Ex. 1003 3:22–33, 34–36, 4:38–45, 5:33–37,
`43-50, 8:6–11, 33–34, 38–39, 50–57, 62–63 9:1–7, Figs. 1–2; Ex. 1004, 2:4–
`10, 58-65; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 41–82). We determine on the record before us that
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`
`Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion
`that claim 1 is obvious in view of Simpson or Simpson and Stanford.
`3. Claims 3 and 23
`Claims 3 and 23 recite similar limitations, including that the first pivot
`bar is secured in “the first channel by [] at least one screw passing through
`the first pivot bar and into the [] inner surface of the first channel.” Ex.
`1001, 8:31–33, 14:14–16. Although Simpson does not disclose using a
`screw to secure pivot bar 109 to the table top, Petitioner argues that the
`knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, as well as the prior art, e.g.
`Stanford, establishes that it was known that “table support legs are typically
`attached to the table top using threaded screws.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1004
`1:55–57). Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Davis opines that a person of ordinary
`skill using common sense would understand that “a screw would be a
`suitable mechanism for providing additional structural integrity to reduce the
`risk of the pivot shaft 109 dislodging.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 91.
`Patent Owner asserts with respect to claims 3 and 23 that Petitioner’s
`argument does not adequately “specify where each element of the claim is
`found in the prior art” in accordance with the requirements of 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(4). Prelim. Resp. 10. Patent Owner contends specifically that
`the Petition only states that it would be obvious to screw the pivot shaft into
`the bottom of the table, whereas the claim recites that the screw must pass
`“into the [] inner surface of the first channel.” Id., Ex. 1001, 8:31–33.
`The specification of the ’644 patent describes that “[f]ormed into the
`bottom surface of the table top are opposing first and second channels.” Ex.
`1001, 1:38–39. In addition, the specification explains that the projections
`34, 36 in which the channels are formed are “integral and continuous
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`
`extensions of the material which forms the bottom surface 12b of the table
`top 12.” Id. at 5:6–8. Further, claim 1 recites “opposing first and second
`channels formed into the bottom surface.” Id. at 7:52–53. Thus, the
`channels are expressly described and claimed in the ’644 patent as part of
`the bottom surface of the table top. We therefore determine that Petitioner’s
`explanation that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that a
`screw can be fastened to “the bottom” of table top is sufficient to support its
`contention that this claim limitation is met by the identified structure of
`Simpson. Whether or not it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`skill in the art to use a screw to secure Simpson’s pivot bar to an inner
`surface of the grooves, as Patent Owner additionally speculates it would not,
`is an issue to be developed during the trial. See Prelim. Resp. 11 (Patent
`Owner contends that “[t]he inner surfaces of the grooves do not appear to
`include sufficient surface area to receive a screw.”).
`Patent Owner argues also that Stanford teaches away from the use of
`screws for fastening leg support mechanisms to a table top. Id. at 12
`(quoting Stanford’s disclosure: “attachment may compromise the integrity
`of the table top making it weaker at the point of attachment,” Ex. 1004,
`1:58–59). Although Patent Owner’s teaching away argument is not without
`some merit, we view Petitioner’s argument and evidence as sufficient to
`support its position that “[t]he prior art establishes that utilizing screws to
`fasten stationary table components together was well-known.” Pet. 29
`(citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 91–93).
`We determine on the record before us that Petitioner has shown a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 3 and 23
`would have been obvious in view of Simpson or Simpson and Stanford.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`
`
`4. Claim 9
`Patent Owner argues that claim 9 is not obvious in view of Simpson
`because “the only disclosure of blow-molded tables in Simpson is critical of
`blow-molded tables and discourages the use of blow-molded construction.”
`Prelim. Resp. 6. Claim 9 recites in its entirety:
`9. The collapsible table of claim 1 wherein the table top further
`comprises a blow-molded thermoplastic material.
`We find that claim 9 recites, on its face, a product, i.e. a table as in
`claim 1, made by the process of blow-molding thermoplastic material. See
`Ex. 1001, 1:35–36 (The specification describes “a collapsible table having a
`table top, such as may be formed by blow molding.”). This is a product by
`process claim. For purposes of patentability, product by process claims are
`treated as product claims. See Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 580
`F.3d 1340, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Simpson discloses a collapsible table and
`a top fabricated from plastic. See Ex. 1001, 1:25–26 (Simpson describes “a
`table including a one-piece, monolithic plastic table top member.”) On this
`record, Petitioner’s arguments and evidence are sufficient to support a
`finding that blow-molding does not impart structural or functional
`characteristics that would distinguish the claimed table from the structure
`disclosed in Simpson. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:11–16; Ex. 1004, 10:42–
`44; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 119–122).
`We determine on the record before us that Petitioner has shown a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 9 would have
`been obvious in view of Simpson or Simpson and Stanford.
`5. Claims 2, 4–6, 10–11, 14–18, 22, and 24
`Patent Owner does not substantively address these remaining claims
`challenged by Petitioner in this first ground. See Prelim. Resp. 5.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`
`
`We have reviewed each of these remaining challenged independent
`and dependent claims in ground 1 in light of Simpson or Simpson and
`Stanford, and find Petitioner’s arguments and evidence are sufficient at this
`stage of the proceeding to support Petitioner’s contentions under ground 1
`with respect to these claims . See Pet. 6–53. We determine on the record
`before us that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on
`its assertion that claims 2, 4–6, 10–11, 14–18, 22, and 24 would have been
`obvious in view of Simpson or Simpson and Stanford.
`C. Claims 1–6, 9–11, 14–18, and 22–24— Alleged obviousness over
`Stanford
`1. Stanford
`Stanford describes a folding table as shown below in figure 2.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of Stanford, above, illustrates table mounting surface 14 for
`receiving frame 40 having side rails 42, 44 and legs, i.e. support pedestals
`18, 20, each connected via angled member 100 to respective support braces
`24, 30 and hence to a single pivot bar, i.e. cross brace member 36 positioned
`in the center of the underside of the table. See Ex. 1004, 7:31–65.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`
`
`The mounting surface of the table is provided with a pair of mounting
`members 148, each having a groove for receiving cross brace member 36.
`Id. at 11:1–5. The legs rotate about cross poles 86 between a collapsed
`position and an extended, in use position, as shown above, where the legs
`extend perpendicularly away from table top 12. Id. at 7:58–65.
`Stanford describes a second embodiment of a similar folding table
`including a pair of pivot bars 36a, 36b, as shown in Figure 4, below.
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4 of Stanford, above, illustrates an embodiment having two notable
`differences from the embodiment of Figure2, first this second embodiment
`includes two pivot bars, i.e. cross brace members 36a, 36b, and second, there
`are no mounting members 148 apparently formed in the underside of table
`top 12. See id. at 14:38–57 (The specification explaining that these features
`“have been omitted from the embodiment of the utility table 210 illustrated
`in FIG. 4.”)
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`
`
`2. Independent claims 1, 10, 14, and 22
`Patent Owner addresses Stanford, as applied to independent claims 1,
`10, 14, and 22, essentially as a group. Prelim. Resp. 13–19. We address,
`initially, claim 1 as representative of this group.
`Petitioner argues that Stanford’s first embodiment (shown in Figure 2,
`above) discloses substantially all of the elements of claim 1, including pivot
`bar (cross brace member 36) and channel (groove 150), but not a first and
`second pivot bars and related first and second channels. See Pet. 55–56
`(citing Ex. 1004 at 11:5–8; Ex. 1005 ¶ 197). Petitioner turns to Stanford’s
`second embodiment shown in Figure 4, above, identifying cross brace
`members 36a, 36b as disclosing the first and second pivot bars recited in
`claim 1. Id. at 57. Petitioner concedes that Stanford Figure 4 does not show
`groove 150 or a pair of grooves 150 as shown in Stanford Figure 2, but
`asserts that Stanford makes clear, and that a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would have recognized, that such grooves could have been included and
`are contemplated by Stanford’s second embodiment. Id. at 56–58 (citing Ex.
`1004, 7:57–65, 11:5–10, 14:36–57; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 199–203).
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not shown an articulated
`reason supported by rational evidentiary underpinnings to support the
`combination of Stanford’s embodiments. Prelim. Resp. 15. Patent Owner
`contends also that Stanford’s first embodiment provides no motivation for
`combination with the second embodiment because
`[a]ttaching both leg supports to a single cross-brace retained in
`the central support assembly results in “forces applied to the table
`top 12 which would ordinarily be transferred through one of the
`support pivotal braces 24, 30, respectively, into the table top 12
`causing it to bow, will substantially be nullified by the counter
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`
`
`force provided by the opposing pivotal support brace 24, 30,
`respectively.”
`Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1004, 10:19–24).
`Petitioner and its declarant, on the other hand, rely on express
`disclosures in Stanford as support for the contention that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have combined the features of the first and
`second embodiments. For example, Petitioner relies on Stanford’s
`description of why such separate cross brace members might be preferred:
`the absence of the cross-brace members 36a, 36b from the central
`portion 216 of the table top 12 provides usable storage space to
`accommodate the foot members 213 when the support pedestals
`18, 20 are disposed in the collapsed position.
`Ex. 1004, 13: 58–62.
`Petitioner also relies on Stanford’s suggestion that specific elements
`of the first embodiment may be incorporated into the second embodiment:
`one or more mounting members 148 for supportably retaining the
`retaining assembly 36 in relation to the mounting surface 14 of
`the table top 12 (see FIGS. 2 and 3) . . . have been omitted from
`the embodiment of the utility table 210 illustrated in FIG. 4. It is
`contemplated herein that one or more of these structural features,
`however, may be incorporated into the alternate design of the
`utility table 210, if desired.
`Id. at 14:42–57. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Davis, relies on this teaching in
`Stanford’s specification also to support his reasoning that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that the embodiments could be
`combined because “Stanford specifically teaches that these embodiments are
`not mutually exclusive and are intended to be combined to form other
`embodiments.” Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 189 (citing Ex. 1004, 14:36–57).
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`
`
`We find that Petitioner has presented sufficient evidence and
`explanation as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`motivated by Stanford, along with the necessary articulated reasoning and
`rational evidentiary underpinnings that support a combination of the
`embodiments disclosed by Stanford, to meet the elements of claim 1. See
`Pet. 53–69 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:18–22, 4:52–67, 5:23–25, 43–44, 55–60,
`7:57–65, 8:11–14, 11:5–10, 12:16–26, 13:21–37, 14:5–17, 36–57, Figs. 1–
`4; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 191–241). We have also reviewed the elements and steps
`recited in the other independent claim 10, 14, and 22 and find persuasive
`Petitioner’s evidence that Stanford also discloses the structure, features and
`methods recited therein. See Pet. 79–91 (citing Ex. Ex. 1004 1:18–22, 4:52–
`67, 5:43–44, 7:57–65, 11:5–10, 13:21–37, 14:5–17, 36–57; Ex. 1005 ¶¶
`191–241). Accordingly, we determine on the record before us that Petitioner
`has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that
`independent claims 1, 10, 14, and 22 would have been obvious in view of
`Stanford.
`
`3. Claims 3 and 23
`As discussed above, claims 3 and 23 recite similar limitations namely
`that the first pivot bar is secured in “the first channel by [] at least one screw
`passing through the first pivot bar and into the [] inner surface of the first
`channel.” Ex. 1001, 8:31–33, 14–16. Petitioner argues, similar to its
`position in the first ground, that although Stanford does not disclose using a
`screw to secure cross brace member(s) 36a, 36b, to the table top, the
`knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art and Stanford itself, establishes
`“that ‘prior art table support legs are typically attached to the table top using
`threaded screws.’” Pet. 71 (citing Ex. 1004 1:55–57). Petitioner’s declarant,
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`
`Dr. Davis, testifies that based on the knowledge of screw type fasteners and
`common sense, in light of Stanford’s teachings, a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would understand that “the grooves 150 would be a logical location to
`screw the cross brace members 36a, 36b onto the bottom surface of the table
`top of Stanford.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 249.
`Patent Owner argues, as it did in the first ground, that Stanford
`teaches away from the use of screws for fastening leg support mechanisms
`to a table top. Prelim. Resp. 20. As discussed above, we are not persuaded
`that Stanford is as clear a teaching away as Patent Owner argues. See
`Prelim. Resp. 21. Although Patent Owner’s teaching away argument is not
`without some merit, we view Petitioner’s argument and evidence as
`sufficient to support its position that “[s]crews were well-known to a POSA
`for mounting one member to another.” Pet. 71 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 247).
`We determine on the record before us that Petitioner has shown a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 3 and 23
`would have been obvious in view of Stanford.
`4. Dependent claims 2, 4–6, 9, 11, 15–18, and 24
`As noted above, Patent Owner does not substantively address these
`remaining claims challenged by Petitioner in this second ground. See
`Prelim. Resp. 13.
`We have reviewed each of these remaining challenged dependent
`claims in ground 2 in light of Stanford, and find Petitioner’s arguments and
`evidence are sufficient at this stage of the proceeding to support Petitioner’s
`contentions under Ground 2 with respect to these claims. See Pet. 70–92.
`We determine on the record before us that Petitioner has shown a reasonable
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`
`likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 2, 4–6, 9, 11, 15–18, and
`24 would have been obvious in view of Stanford.
`IV. SUMMARY
`Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented in the
`Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the respective grounds
`of unpatentability of claims 1–6, 9–11, 14–18, and 22–24 as obvious over
`each of (a) Simpson or Simpson and Stanford, and (b) Stanford under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a).
`The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of
`any challenged claims.
`
`V. ORDER
` For the reasons given, it is
`ORDERED that inter partes review of the ’644 patent is hereby
`instituted as to claims 1–6, 9–11, 14–18, and 22–24 on the following
`grounds.
`
`1. Claims 1–6, 9–11, 14–18, and 22–24 as obvious over Simpson
`or Simpson and Stanford; and
`2. Claims 1–6, 9–11, 14–18, and 22–24 as obvious over Stanford;
`FURTHER ORDERED that no ground other than those specifically
`granted above is authorized for the inter partes review; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial on the
`grounds of unpatentability authorized above; the trial commences on the
`entry date of this decision.
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00846
`Patent 6,622,644 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Michael N. MacCallum
`Mark A. Jotanovic
`John S. LeRoy
`BROOKS KUSHMAN, P.C.
`mmaccallum@brookskushman.com
`mjotanovic@brookskushman.com
`jleroy@brookskushman.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Mark P. Crockett
`Michael J. Bradford
`LUEDEKA NEELY GROUP, P.C.
`mcrockett@Luedeka.com
`mbradford@Luedeka.com
`
`23
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
