`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MARKER VOLKL USA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KNEEBINDING INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01265
`Patent 8,955,867
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: June 25, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and MATTHEW S.
`MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01265
`Patent 8,955,867
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONR:
`
`PATRICK D. MCPHERSON, ESQUIRE
`
`ANTHONY J. FITZPATRICK, ESQUIRE
`
`CAROLYN A. ALENCI, ESQUIRE
`
`Duane Morris, LLP
`
`505 9th Street, N.W.
`
`Suite 1000
`
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`
`
`
` BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BRADLEY T. FOX, ESQUIRE
`Fox Law Group LLC
`528C Main Avenue
`Durango, CO 81301
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, June 25,
`2018, commencing at 2:01 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, before Chris Hofer, Notary Public.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01265
`Patent 8,955,867
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE KIM: So welcome everybody. This is the oral
`hearing for IPR2017-01265, Marker Volkl, USA v. Kneebinding
`Inc. I am Michael Kim and on the screen with us we have Judge
`Patrick Scanlon and Judge Matthew Meyers. So then if we could
`start with appearances from counsel starting with Petitioner,
`please.
`MR. MCPHERSON: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`Patrick McPherson from the law firm of Duane Morris for the
`Petitioners. With me is Tony Fitzpatrick who will be making the
`argument on behalf of Petitioner today, and Carolyn Alenci, both
`from the Duane Morris law firm, and with us is a client
`representative from Marker, Mr. Otto Harsanyi.
`JUDGE KIM: Thank you very much.
`MR. MCPHERSON: Thank you.
`JUDGE KIM: And Patent Owner.
`MR. FOX: Good afternoon, Your Honors. My name is
`Bradley Fox and I'm representing Kneebinding, Inc. I'm from
`Fox Law group, and with me today is John Springer-Miller from
`Kneebinding Inc., the Patent Owner.
`JUDGE KIM: Thank you. Welcome. So a few
`housekeeping things. Under the Hearing Order each side will be
`given 60 minutes oral argument. Because Petitioner has the
`burden on ultimate issues, we're going to start with Petitioner
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01265
`Patent 8,955,867
`who will make their initial case, then move to Patent Owner who
`will use the entirety or as much of the 60 minutes they would
`like and anything Petitioner would like to reserve for rebuttal,
`they will have the last say at the end.
`Just general logistics. As you can see because Judges
`Scanlon and Meyers are remote, they cannot see what is on the
`screen so please just make sure when you're speaking to identify
`which slide you are talking about. They do have copies of the
`slides and they can follow on if we are very diligent about that.
`Also for members, counsel and also the audience for in and
`outs, the only thing we ask is that if you do need to exit or enter
`please limit those to when counsel changes speaking to be as
`least disruptive as possible, and last but not least one thing I
`noticed was that Patent Owner you only emailed the
`demonstratives to the Board, they were not filed or at least we
`couldn't find them in the online record. So we just ask that in
`the next few days if you could please go ahead and upload those
`to the PTAB end-to-end system so they are part of the record,
`we'd appreciate it. Okay, so with that unless there's anything
`else Petitioner's counsel you may come up and approximately
`how much time would you like to reserve for rebuttal?
`MR. FITZPATRICK: Approximately 15 minutes, Your
`Honor, and Judge Kim I have, if it would be helpful, a hard copy
`of our slides.
`JUDGE KIM: Sure.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01265
`Patent 8,955,867
`MR. FITZPATRICK: If I may approach?
`JUDGE KIM: Yes.
`MR. FITZPATRICK: Thank you.
`JUDGE KIM: Thank you very much.
`MR. FITZPATRICK: So, as my colleague Mr. McPherson
`indicated my name is Anthony Fitzpatrick. I'm going to be
`arguing on behalf of the Petitioner this afternoon.
`Moving to slide 2, this is an overview in general of what
`I'm going to discuss this afternoon. I'll be giving an overview of
`the patent at issue, the 867 patent as well as the two prior art
`references that are at issue in these proceedings and then
`addressing the two grounds -- anticipation of the independent
`claim 1 and the challenged dependent claims 4 and 9 by the
`German patent application which we refer to as DE '298, and
`then obviousness of those same challenged claims over the
`Boussemart 772 reference in view of the German DE '298
`reference -- and I'll be addressing a number of issues, principally
`claim construction issues that have been raised by the Patent
`Owner in the course of my presentation.
`I am going to focus on the issues that are in dispute
`between the parties and so I do not plan, for instance, to address
`the dependent claims separately because the Patent Owner didn't
`address those claims at all in its submissions and therefore we
`would contend has conceded that if claim 1 is unpatentable, then
`the dependent claims are similarly unpatentable.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01265
`Patent 8,955,867
`JUDGE KIM: Counsel, isn't there still a burden on
`Petitioner however to --
`MR. FITZPATRICK: Certainly, Your Honor.
`JUDGE KIM: -- (indiscernible) your burden with respect to
`dependent claims? I mean it's possible, you know, we try not to
`but we overlook things sometimes so if we look at a dependent
`claim and oh, there's just nothing there, what are we supposed to
`do?
`
`MR. FITZPATRICK: Well, all of the dependent claims
`with respect to both grounds are addressed in our submissions so
`in our petition and in the declaration of our expert, Dr. Shealy,
`those claims individually one by one are addressed with respect
`to both grounds and so we would submit that the written
`submission and the evidence presented with that satisfies our
`burden with respect to those dependent claims.
`JUDGE KIM: Understood, we understand your position.
`Thank you.
`MR. FITZPATRICK: Thank you. So moving on to slide
`No. 3. Some background regarding the 867 patent. This patent
`is entitled Alpine Ski Binding Heel Unit. It issued in February
`of 2015 and claims ultimate priority to a provisional application
`that was filed in February of 2003. Two earlier patents in the
`family issued that claim ultimate priority back to that same
`original application and the patent is directed to a multi-
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01265
`Patent 8,955,867
`directional release alpine ski binding heel unit that releases in a
`vertical and in a lateral direction.
`So moving to slide No. 4, this is figure 2 from the 867
`patent which we have annotated to show and highlight certain
`specific components. This is a side cross-sectional view of the
`principal embodiment that is disclosed in the specification and
`this shows the principal components involved in resisting
`vertical forces. We have the upper heel housing which is No. 16
`depicted in pink which is connected to the lateral release cam 17
`which is depicted in gold, and those two are connected by way of
`a pivot rod 18 which is shown here in red, and then within the
`internal pocket of the upper heel housing there is a spring 21
`shown as an X which pushes down on the cam follower
`component 20 which is illustrated in lavender, and the upper heel
`housing 16 holds and compresses the heel of the ski boot
`downward to oppose upward forces that are generated by the ski
`boot during skiing. So components 33, 54, 32 within the upper
`heel housing, those are the particular components that contact
`the heel of the boot.
`So moving to slide 5, this is an illustrative demonstrative
`exhibit that we prepared to illustrate the interaction between this
`binding and the heel of a ski boot, and prepared for
`demonstrative purposes in connection with this proceeding.
`Then in slide 6 we have figure 4 from the 867 patent and
`this is a top cross-sectional view of the principle components
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01265
`Patent 8,955,867
`involved in the lateral release and lateral securing and we've
`highlighted here with different colors those main components.
`So we have the lateral release cam 17 which we saw earlier in
`figure 2, here again in figure 4 illustrated in gold. That has cam
`surfaces 17C and those are biased or forced against opposing
`cam surfaces of the lower heel component. The lateral spring
`biasing component 52 includes a spring 35, again illustrated with
`an X, that is placed in compression by the opposing force of
`tension shaft parts 36A and B, and the connector rod. So those
`are shown respectively in orange and light blue. So in general
`terms those are the principal components of the embodiment
`that's disclosed in the specification.
`Moving to slide 7, as the Board is aware this IPR has been
`instituted on two grounds. The first ground, as I mentioned, is
`anticipation of the challenged claims in view of the German
`reference and then as shown in slide 8 the second ground is
`obviousness over the German reference and the Boussemart 772
`reference.
`Moving to slide 9. I'd like to spend some time addressing a
`couple of claim construction issues that are raised by the Patent
`Owner's response and really I think the Patent Owner's response
`to the petition largely hinges on these two specific arguments
`that they're making.
`In slide 10 we've depicted claim 1 of the patent. It's got a
`preamble clause. A vector decoupling assembly for separating
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01265
`Patent 8,955,867
`and isolating two or more force vectors applied to a safety
`binding securing a heel portion of a ski boot to a ski, and then
`there are four limitations that are recited below that; the lower
`heel assembly, the upper heel assembly which has specific parts
`to it, a linkage element, and then the wherein clause which I'll
`discuss and address in some detail.
`Moving to slide 11, in the related District Court litigation
`the Patent Owner has contended that the preamble is not a
`limitation of the claim. The Patent Owner has contended in the
`District Court that the preamble merely recites the purpose of the
`invention and does not recite any structural elements and the
`Patent Owner has not expressly argued here in these proceedings
`that the preamble is a limitation.
`However, moving to slide 12, the Patent Owner is, we
`would submit, effectively trying to import the language of the
`preamble and specifically the separating and isolating language
`from the preamble into other limitations of the claim and they do
`this by making two arguments. First by arguing that the lateral
`release assembly can move only in a horizontal and lateral plane
`and secondly, by arguing that the lateral release assembly and
`the upper heel assembly must be separate, and these arguments
`are interlaced throughout their response and we provide here
`some examples on slide 12. For example, they say in their
`response the prior art with lateral and vertical release
`mechanisms that share functional structures such that lateral and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01265
`Patent 8,955,867
`vertical release forces are cross-linked cannot meet the claim
`limitations, and then they also say the claims require decoupling
`lateral and vertical release forces and insuring that vertical
`forces have no effect on lateral release forces.
`Similarly, on slide 13 another example where they seek to
`differentiate or distinguish the Boussemart 772 reference by
`saying that it doesn't separate and isolate vertical and lateral
`release forces.
`So moving to slide 14, with respect to the Wherein clause,
`the Wherein clause says, Wherein the linkage element a first
`surface and a second surface cooperate to limit motion of the
`lateral release assembly to within a predetermined region with a
`plane defined by the longitudinal and horizontal axes of the ski.
`Now, what the Patent Owner wants to do is to read the word only
`into that clause so that it would say that the lateral release
`assembly can only move within a plane defined by the
`longitudinal and horizontal axes.
`So moving to slide 15. They say, for example, in their
`response at page 24 that if the lateral release assembly was
`permitted to move up and down as well as laterally that would
`mean that the lateral release assembly would be affected by
`vertical release forces as well as lateral release forces, thus
`cross-linking the two release mechanisms. They also say, for
`instance, at page 2 of their response, by limiting motion of the
`lateral release assembly to within this horizontal plane, vertical
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01265
`Patent 8,955,867
`and lateral forces are unlinked. The problem is the specification
`doesn't say that anywhere and what they're trying to do is to read
`the separating and isolating language from the preamble into the
`Wherein clause.
`Moving to slide 16. They actually expressly say this at one
`point in their response. They say on page 22, they quote on page
`22 of their response the Wherein clause and then they say,
`"Put another way, challenged claim 1 requires that the
`lateral release assembly can only move within the specified
`horizontal plane of the ski."
`The problem is what they're trying to do is they're trying
`now to rewrite the claim. But that's not what the claim says.
`What the Wherein clause is talking about is, it's talking about the
`cooperation of the linkage element, the first surface and the
`second surface and it's saying that those three components
`cooperate together to limit the motion of the lateral release
`assembly within a predetermined region within the lateral and
`horizontal axis of the ski. But that does not restrict or mean that
`the lateral release assembly cannot move in some direction other
`than that subject to other components and there's good reason
`why one might, that the specification in fact tells us why one
`might want to restrict motion using these components to a
`predetermined region. For instance, in column 8 of the
`specification, lines 53 to 62, it specifically talks about an
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01265
`Patent 8,955,867
`embodiment where lateral release occurs only to one side. So
`that's a restriction to a predetermined region.
`The Patent Owner's position is particularly problematic I
`would submit because the specification nowhere identifies the
`linkage element and the first surface, and the second surface.
`There's no specific discussion, no express discussion, anywhere
`in the specification about this linkage element and it cooperating
`with these two surfaces, and so since the specification tells us
`really nothing about that, it would be overly restrictive to
`interpret the Wherein clause in the manner that the Patent Owner
`suggests and it would also be, as I said earlier, effectively
`importing the limitations or the language of the preamble into
`this element.
`One final point with respect to this claim construction
`issue. The Patent Owner's argument on this issue is contradicted
`by their position in the District Court. In the District Court we
`argued that the only components that would restrict movement of
`the lateral release assembly in this manner would be these three
`components; the linkage element, the first surface and the second
`surface, and they said that there was no requirement that it would
`be only those three components and they said,
`"Marker once again is importing limitations to the claim
`that do not exist in the claim as written."
`So that's in Exhibit 1009, their claim construction brief at
`page 20.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01265
`Patent 8,955,867
`JUDGE KIM: So are you arguing the opposite in District
`Court then?
`MR. FITZPATRICK: No. We're not arguing the opposite,
`
`no.
`
`JUDGE KIM: Okay.
`MR. FITZPATRICK: No.
`JUDGE KIM: Because you mentioned that they said that
`Marker is saying whatever and that seemed to align with what
`they're saying here.
`MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes, no, what our argument there was
`related to the specific components, not that it can only move in
`that lateral direction.
`JUDGE KIM: And just for a little bit of information.
`Where are we in the District Court case with respect to claim
`construction, like have briefs been submitted, has there been a
`Marker (phonetic) hearing, anything like that?
`MR. FITZPATRICK: It's been briefed. We have not had a
`hearing or a ruling and the case has been stayed in view of these
`proceedings.
`JUDGE KIM: Okay. Thank you.
`JUDGE MEYERS: Can you repeat what exhibit that was?
`You said that was Exhibit 1009?
`MR. FITZPATRICK: 1009, yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEYERS: And what page?
`MR. FITZPATRICK: Page 20.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01265
`Patent 8,955,867
`JUDGE MEYERS: Page 20. Okay, thank you.
`MR. FITZPATRICK: So in summary then we would submit
`that their position regarding interpretation of the Wherein clause
`is simply wrong. Moving forward to slide 17. Their second
`claim construction argument is that the upper heel housing and
`the lateral release assembly must be functionally separate
`elements, functionally separate parts of the binding. Again, the
`claim language doesn't say this. It doesn't expressly say that
`these parts cannot share common components nor does it say that
`can't operate functionally with each other so long as the recited
`functions are performed.
`Moving to slide 18, that's clear from the specification
`itself, so here we have on slide 18 again figure 2, the side cross-
`sectional view and this is an annotated version taken from the
`Patent Owner's response and the description of this embodiment
`in the specification makes it clear that a portion of the lateral
`release assembly contributes to the vertical downward
`compression imparted by the upper heel assembly to the boot.
`Specifically as I mentioned earlier, the upper heel housing 16
`connects to the lateral release cam 17 by way of the pivot rod 18
`and the patent expressly describes that the vertical release is a
`function of the opposing cam surfaces 19A on 17 and 19B at the
`bottom of 20, and so a portion of the lateral release assembly
`which is specifically element 17 and specifically cam surface
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01265
`Patent 8,955,867
`19A creates the vertical force that compresses the heel of the
`boot downward, as recited in claim 1.
`Indeed, looking at slide 19 the Patent Owner agrees. This
`is directly from the Patent Owner response at pages 7 to 8. They
`say that the upward push of the spring 21 against the threaded
`cap of the upper heel housing 16 in combination with cam 19A
`and pivot rod 18 creates a corresponding downward compressive
`force at heel cup 47. So the Patent Owner is conceding that this
`19A, which is part of the lateral release cam 17, is contributing
`to the vertical and downward compression. So it's clear that the
`specification itself is teaching that these two pieces, the upper
`heel housing and the lateral release assembly, are connected.
`They're intertwined, they share components and they overlap.
`So we would submit, Your Honors, that their position that
`the lateral release assembly and the upper heel housing must be
`completely separate are wrong. Again, just briefly, with respect
`to their position in the District Court, their position in the
`District Court supports this because in the District Court they
`argued that the lower heel assembly and the upper heel assembly
`could have components in common and that's shown on slides 20
`and 21, and we would submit that an argument that the upper
`heel assembly and the lower heel assembly can share components
`is inconsistent with their argument here that the upper heel
`housing and lateral release assembly must be separate. So
`moving then to slide --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01265
`Patent 8,955,867
`JUDGE KIM: So, yes, sorry. I have a question. So I think
`it seems -- is it error to say there's a different flavor between the
`plane arguments and the linkage arguments in that I feel like for
`the plane arguments there's only one embodiment in the
`specification and so their position is sort of based on the fact
`that well there's only one embodiment and so we have to read the
`claims sort of consistent with this one embodiment, whereas for
`a linkage one I think you seem to be saying that even there they
`don't have an embodiment like where they're even separate. I
`know that was a lot of questions packed into one but am I off in
`understanding your positions?
`MR. FITZPATRICK: I think what I'm trying to get at,
`Your Honor, is you have to start I think with the plain language
`of the claims and the plain language of the claims is such that a)
`it doesn't say that the upper heel housing and the lateral release
`assembly have to be completely functionally separate and cannot
`share components.
`JUDGE KIM: Oh, I understand that. I'm just trying to
`understand the spec part of it.
`MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes, and I'm going to loop if I can.
`JUDGE KIM: Sure. Thank you.
`MR. FITZPATRICK: And then with respect to the Wherein
`clause, again it doesn't say wherein the lateral release assembly
`can only move in a lateral plane. So what we're doing is we're
`really trying to focus on what does the claim say and if they had
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01265
`Patent 8,955,867
`wanted to amend their claim, they could potentially have had an
`opportunity to do that. They didn't ask to amend their claim.
`The claim is as it is. This is how they wrote it when they were
`seeking their patent and we would say our analysis is that plain
`language text based analysis, but I would submit that it is
`supported by the spec in both instances. I think it's supported by
`the spec with respect to upper heel assembly lateral release
`assembly being functionally separate by that explanation I just
`went through with respect to figure 2 and the accompanying
`description in the specification.
`I would also say that with respect to the Wherein clause it's
`similarly supported by the specification because, as I said, in
`column 8, lines 53 to 62, it specifically teaches an embodiment
`where the lateral release only occurs to one side and it talks
`about the importance of that from a safety perspective. This is
`the view of the inventor that by having a binding with this
`design, it could be safer for the skier and could reduce ACL
`injuries, and in particular could do that by only allowing release
`to one side, specifically to the outside.
`So that, we would contend, is consistent with this language
`in the claim that talks about the linkage element first surface and
`second surface limiting motion of the lateral release assembly to
`this predetermined region. So I would submit -- I guess what I'm
`saying, Your Honor, is we submit on both issues we're following
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01265
`Patent 8,955,867
`the plain language and it's supported by the spec. I hope that
`answered your question.
`JUDGE KIM: Not really, but I didn't articulate very well
`so (indiscernible.)
`MR. FITZPATRICK: I mean I'm happy to -- if Your Honor
`has follow-up?
`JUDGE KIM: I think maybe I kind of want to hear from
`Patent Owner on their position --
`MR. FITZPATRICK: Very well.
`JUDGE KIM: -- on this and then maybe that'll clarify it for
`rebuttal.
`MR. FITZPATRICK: Very well. So turning to the German
`reference, the DE '298, this is a patent application that relates to
`a ski binding that resists against release in the upper direction
`and also resists against release in the lateral direction wherein
`the resistance in each direction can be dimensioned and adjusted
`independently of each other.
`So turning to slide 23, this is an annotated version of figure
`1 of the German reference showing the principle components.
`The bearing block 11 which is attached to the ski, that's attached
`using component 12 to the hold-down member 13 and hold-down
`member 13 can rotate upward in the direction depicted with the
`arrow X so it's rotating in a clockwise direction as we're looking
`at it, and then there are a pair of compression springs 17
`depicted in green which interact with the front cross wall and are
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01265
`Patent 8,955,867
`biased to oppose upward movement of the hold-down member,
`and then depicted in gold on the left are the retaining jaws 25
`which have wings that come out 26 which contact the heel of the
`ski boot. In response to a strong upward directed force, the
`hold-down member and the heel holder are swiveled upwards
`together in the direction of arrow X and the German patent
`application teaches that when this happens the lateral release
`mechanism remains unaffected and that's taught at page 8 of the
`German reference.
`On slide 24 we have a demonstrative that shows the
`interaction between a boot and this binding. I'll address that in
`some more detail shortly, and then on slide 25 we have a top
`cross-sectional view, an annotated view from figure 2 of the
`German patent application showing the retaining jaw 25 which is
`attached to the hold-down member 13 by a rod shaped tension
`member 27 and detent spring 28. Those are depicted in blue and
`purple respectively and in operation in response to a strong
`lateral force in the direction of the arrows Y1 and Y2 the heel
`holder 25 can swivel in the corresponding transverse direction.
`On slide 26 we have again a demonstrative which depicts the
`heel of the boot interacting with this binding.
`So turning then to ground one, which is anticipation of the
`challenged claims by this German reference. I'm going to
`address the two elements that Patent Owner addressed in its
`submission. So first of all, looking at slide 28 we've bolded the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01265
`Patent 8,955,867
`first of these which is the upper heel assembly comprising an
`upper heel housing that is configured to compress the heel
`portion of the ski boot downward.
`The 867 patent, turning to slide 29, teaches that
`compression is the opposition of upward forces. The patent
`specifically says, as we've quoted here on slide 29, that the,
`"Upper heel housing holds and compresses a ski boot heel
`downward to oppose the upward forces generated by the ski boot
`during skiing."
`And on slide 30 there is very similar language in the
`German reference. It says that the hold-down member serves to
`hold the shoe in the upward direction and is held down against
`upwardly pivoting and this language, we would submit, is very
`similar to the language quoted in slide 29 and indeed the German
`reference discloses an upper heel housing that is configured to
`compress the heel of the boot downward, as shown in these slides
`with annotated versions of figures 1 and 2 and we see here the
`downward compressing force that is imparted by the springs 17
`on to the hold-down member and the retaining jaw. As our
`expert Dr. Shealy points out at paragraph 72 of his declaration, it
`is important to restrict slack in the coupling between the boot
`and the ski in order to improve control and thus safety.
`Turning to slide 32, the Patent Owner we would submit has
`really misinterpreted our figure Q which I showed on the
`previous slide. They latch on to and make much of the fact that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01265
`Patent 8,955,867
`there is a very small gap shown between the top of the heel of
`the boot and the bottom of the wings of the retaining jaw. It's a
`demonstrative exhibit. We didn't intend to suggest that there
`would actually be a gap. Their expert, Mr. Dodge, in his
`deposition admitted that he understood that this figure was
`merely for demonstrative purposes and he described it as a rough
`illustration that wasn't actually correct.
`Moving to slide 33. In any event, the reality is that even if
`a gap existed there would still be compressive force. Mr. Dodge
`confirmed or agreed that if the boot were to move up and the
`patent itself, as we saw on slide 29, talks about the heel of the
`boot moving, if that moved up then the retaining jaw would
`provide compressive force and he confirmed that there are no ski
`binding designs on the market today where the heel cup does not
`compress the heel of the boot on to the ski surface.
`Moving to slide 34. Mr. Dodge tries to argue or suggest
`that well, perhaps there could be a gap and there could be a
`reason for a gap and he points to certain prior art. But the
`reality is that what he points to is art relating to the toe
`component of a ski binding, not the heel component, and as I say
`there's no heel on the market that doesn't provide compressive
`force and so we would submit in summary that their arguments
`regarding this compression issue are simply wrong.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01265
`Patent 8,955,867
`Moving to slide 35. We've highlighted here the Wherein
`clause that goes to their second argument as to how they tried to
`distinguish the German reference.
`On slide 36 we've depicted again figures 1 and 2 from the
`German reference with annotations to show that this reference
`does disclose a linkage element and two surfaces that limit
`motion of the lateral release assembly. The rod-shaped tension
`member 27 acts as a linkage member and then the opposing
`surfaces, the back of the retaining jaw 25 and the front of the
`hold-down member are in opposition and in tension and the
`combination of those acts to limit the motion of the lateral
`release assembly to within a predetermined region within the
`lateral plane.
`JUDGE MEYERS: Counsel, can I just jump in there for a
`Minute?
`MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes, Judge Meyers.
`JUDGE MEYERS: On the 867 patent, what elements
`correspond in figure 2 to the first and second surfaces?
`MR. FITZPATRICK: Well, that's a good question because
`the patent doesn't actually expressly teach that. If I can, at the
`risk of making everybody dizzy, I'll go back to slide 6.
`JUDGE MEYERS: I ask because I think this goes back to
`your reliance on that column 8, I don't remember exactly what
`line it was, 50 to 60 I think --
`MR. FITZPATRICK: Fifty three to sixty two.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01265
`Patent 8,955,867
`JUDGE MEYERS: -- 53 to 62, that refers to a tongue 60
`(indiscernible) your figure 2 of the 867 patent.
`MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes. On slide 4.
`JUDGE MEYERS: Okay.
`MR. FITZPATRICK: So I think in this particular
`embodiment what happens is you've got the tongue 60 that
`projects out from the lateral release cam and then there is above
`that a cantilevered portion
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
