`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`BESTWAY (USA), INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INTEX MARKETING LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-01396
`Patent No. 9,156,203
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`’203 PATENT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 2
`II.
`A. Overview ............................................................................................................................. 2
`B. Challenged Claims .............................................................................................................. 8
`C. Prosecution History ............................................................................................................. 8
`1. Office Action and Response ........................................................................................... 8
`2. Third Party Submission................................................................................................... 9
`a. Bestway was the “anonymous” third party .............................................................. 10
`b. Pennel ....................................................................................................................... 11
`c. GB’023 ...................................................................................................................... 12
`3. Notice of Allowance ..................................................................................................... 14
`D. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................................................... 14
`III.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................................. 14
`A. “welding” / “welded” / “welder” ...................................................................................... 14
`1. The intrinsic evidence strongly supports these constructions ....................................... 15
`2. The ’773 Patent claims strongly support these constructions ....................................... 17
`3. A technical dictionary definition further supports these constructions ........................ 18
`4. Bestway’s construction should be rejected ................................................................... 18
`B. “plurality of strands” ......................................................................................................... 19
`1. The intrinsic evidence strongly supports this construction ........................................... 19
`a. The “plurality of strands” embodiments .................................................................. 20
`b. The “wrapping at least one continuous strand” embodiments ................................ 22
`2. The ’773 Patent prosecution history strongly supports this construction ..................... 24
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 27
`IV.
`A. Grounds 1 and 2 of the Petition Should be Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) .............. 27
`1. The Relevant Prior Art and Arguments “Presented to the Office” ............................... 28
`a. The relevant prior art “presented to the Office” ...................................................... 28
`b. The relevant arguments “presented to the Office” ................................................... 30
`2. The Art and Arguments “Presented to the Office” Are “the Same or Substantially
`the Same” as the Art and Arguments Presented in the Petition ............................................ 30
`a. Ground 1 ................................................................................................................... 30
`b. Ground 2 ................................................................................................................... 31
`3. The Panel Should Exercise its Discretion and Reject the Petition ................................ 33
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`
`
`B. Each of Bestway’s Grounds Should be Rejected on the Merits ....................................... 34
`1. Ground 1 ....................................................................................................................... 34
`a. Claim 1 – “weld strips” on a “first side” and “second side” ................................. 34
`b. Claim 1 – “weld strips welded together” and “welding the plurality of
`tensioning structures to the upper sheet” ......................................................................... 42
`c. Claims 12, 19, 24 – Bestway’s failure of proof......................................................... 44
`d. Claim 6 – “a second plurality of strands extending across the first plurality
`of parallel strands to define the plurality of holes” .......................................................... 47
`e. Claims 13-15 and 20-22 – Weld strip and tensile sheet positioning ........................ 51
`f. Claim 29 – “the plurality of tensioning structures are assembled serially” ............ 55
`2. Ground 2 ....................................................................................................................... 58
`a. Claim 1 – weld strips on a “first side” and “second side” ...................................... 59
`b. Claim 6 – “parallel” and “cross strands” ............................................................... 65
`3. Ground 3 ....................................................................................................................... 65
`a.
`Stutz is Non-Analogous ............................................................................................. 66
`b. Motivation to combine .............................................................................................. 71
`c.
`Improperly interchanging references mid-analysis .................................................. 72
`V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 75
`
`
`
`
`US.113974514.04
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`ACCO Brands, Inc. v. Micro Sec. Devices, Inc.,
`346 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................27
`
`AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................45
`
`Apple Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00354, Paper 14 (PTAB Oct. 14, 2015) ...................................................................68
`
`Baker Hughes v. Smith Int’l,
`Case IPR2016-01450, Paper 10 (PTAB December 22, 2016) .................................................29
`
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................59
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..........................................................................................19, 24
`
`Benetton Sportsystem USA, Inc. v. First Team Sports, Inc.,
`38 F. App’x. 599 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .....................................................................................19, 24
`
`Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC v. AutoAlert, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00225, Paper 15, (PTAB Oct. 10, 2013) ................................................35, 46, 52, 65
`
`Elkay Mfg. Co. v. EBCO Mfg. Co.,
`192 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 1999)............................................................................................24, 25
`
`Hyundai Motor Co. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC,
`IPR2016-01476, Paper 12, (PTAB Jan. 24, 2017) ...................................................................60
`
`In re Clay,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992)............................................................................................69, 70
`
`In re Gurley,
`27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994)..............................................................................................62, 63
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Lit.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................17
`
`Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..........................................................................................66, 69
`
`
`US.113974514.04
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`
`
`Int’l Test Solutions., Inc. v. Mipox Int’l Corp.,
`No. 16-CV-00791-RS, 2017 WL 2118314 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2017) ....................................61
`
`Integrated Global Concepts, Inc. v. Advanced Messaging Techs.,
`IPR2014-01027, Paper 16 (PTAB Dec. 22, 2014) ...................................................................34
`
`IPR Licensing, Inc. v. ZTE Corp.,
`685 F. Appx. 933 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...........................................................................................59
`
`Johnson & Johnston Assoc. Inc. v. R.E. Service Co., Inc.,
`285 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc) ...................................................................15, 17, 20
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .................................................................................................................59
`
`Lower Drug Prices for Consumers, LLC v. Forest Labs. Holdings Ltd.,
`Case IPR2016-00379, Paper 14 (PTAB July 1, 2016).............................................................29
`
`Neil Ziegman v. Carlis G. Stephens,
`Case IPR2015-01860, Paper 11 (PTAB February 24, 2016) .............................................32, 33
`
`Nissan N. Am., Inc. v. Board of Regents, the Univ. of Texas Sys.,
`IPR2012-00035, 2013 WL 2023649 (PTAB Mar. 19, 2013) ..................................................67
`
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1, B.V.,
`Case IPR2016-01309, Paper 11 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2016) ..............................................28, 29, 32
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-01974, Paper 7 (PTAB. Mar. 29, 2016) ..........................................................33
`
`Plas-Pak Industries, Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG,
`600 F. Appx. 755 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .....................................................................................63, 71
`
`PNC Bank, N.A. v. Secure Axcess, LLC,
`CBM2015-00039, Paper 9, (PTAB July 10, 2015) ..................................................................33
`
`Prism Pharma Co., Ltd. v. Choongwae Pharma Corp.,
`IPR2014-00315, Paper 14 (PTAB July 8, 2014) ...............................................................28, 31
`
`PSN Illinois LLC v. Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc.,
`525 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................25
`
`Qualcomm Inc. v. ParkerVision Inc.,
`IPR2015-01819, Paper 8, (PTAB March 8, 2016) .............................................................60, 71
`
`Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co.
`311 U.S. 211 (1940) .................................................................................................................25
`
`
`US.113974514.04
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`
`
`Scientific Plastic Prods., Inc. v. Biotage AB,
`766 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................66
`
`Sontag Chain Stores Co. Ltd. v. Nat’l Nut Co. of California,
`310 U.S. 281 (1940) .................................................................................................................15
`
`St. Jude Med., Inc. v. Access Closure, Inc.,
`729 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................27
`
`Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan Inc.,
`192 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................61
`
`Tianjin Shuangrong Paper Prods. Co., Ltd. v. Kiss Nail Prods., Inc.,
`IPR2016-00371, Paper 13, (PTAB June 10, 2016) ..................................................................69
`
`Tinnus Enters., LLC v. Telebrands Corp.,
`846 F.3d 1190 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................70
`
`Uship Intellectual Props., LLC v. United States,
`714 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................27
`
`Vizio, Inc. v. Nichia Corp.,
`IPR2017-00558, Paper 9 (PTAB July 7, 2017) .......................................................................66
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) .........................................................................................................................27
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ....................................................................................................................14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ................................................................................................................45
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1 (2011) ................................................................................................33
`
`MPEP 609.04(a) .............................................................................................................................29
`
`
`
`
`
`US.113974514.04
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`
`
`Petitioner (or “Bestway”) fails to establish that there is a reasonable likely of
`
`success that any of Claims 1 and 6-29 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,156,203 (the “’203 Patent”) are unpatentable. Therefore, the Panel should
`
`reject Bestway’s Petition.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Panel should reject each of the following three grounds presented in the
`
`Petition:
`
`
`
`First, the Panel should reject Bestway’s Grounds 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`325(d), as each ground presents prior art and arguments that are cumulative of
`
`those the Patent Office has already considered and rejected.
`
`Moreover, the Panel should reject Bestway’s Petition in full for exclusively
`
`relying on an unreasonably broad construction of the term “welding.” Whereas
`
`Intex proposes a construction of “welding” grounded in the intrinsic evidence,
`
`Bestway ignores the evidence in order to propose an unreasonable construction of
`
`“welding” that includes unrelated methods of joining, such as adhering. Bestway’s
`
`motive for doing so is clear, as it fails to present any prior art that teaches
`
`“welding,” and Bestway otherwise fails to present any evidence or argument
`
`regarding how this distinct limitation would be obvious. Therefore, by adopting
`
`
`US.113974514.04
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`
`
`Intex’s broadest reasonable construction of “welding,” the Panel can and should
`
`deny the Petition.
`
`The Panel should deny the Petition for other reasons, as well. Specifically,
`
`Ground 1 is deficient, as Bestway’s analysis of Pennel is inaccurate or otherwise
`
`incomplete, and Bestway relies on an improper construction of the term “a
`
`plurality of strands.” Ground 2 is flawed, as Bestway fails to articulate a reason to
`
`combine GB’023 with Pennel, Pennel teaches away from this combination, and
`
`GB’023 otherwise fails to supply the teachings necessary for Bestway’s analysis.
`
`Ground 3 is lacking, as Stutz is non-analogous art under the undisputed field of
`
`endeavor, Bestway fails to articulate a reason to combine Stutz, Pennel, and
`
`GB’023, Pennel teaches away from this combination, and Bestway’s analysis fails
`
`to address various limitations.
`
`For any of the foregoing reasons, all of which are explained in more detail
`
`below, the Panel should reject Bestway’s Petition.
`
`’203 PATENT BACKGROUND
`
`A. Overview
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`The ’203 Patent is directed to methods of producing inflatable products with
`
`internal tensioning structures. Ex. 1001, 2:7-12; Ex. 2001, ¶27. In one
`
`embodiment, the ’203 Patent discloses a method of manufacturing an air mattress
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`
`
`10 (shown in exploded view in Fig. 3, below) with internal tensioning structures 3.
`
`Ex. 2001, ¶27.
`
`
`The tensioning structures 3 “utilize[] thin and flexible string- or wire-like
`
`strands [32],” which results in lower weight and reduced volume for the air
`
`mattress when deflated and packed away compared to beds made with
`
`conventional tensioning structures. Ex. 1001, 6:9-16; Ex. 2001, ¶28.
`
`Two distinct types of manufacturing tensioning structures are disclosed in
`
`the ’203 Patent—one in which the tensioning structure is made from a “plurality of
`
`strands,” (the “Plurality of Strands Method”), and another in which the tensioning
`
`structure is made by “wrapping at least one continuous strand,” (the “Continuous
`
`Strand Method”). As explained in Section III, infra, the Continuous Strand
`
`Method is not claimed in the ’203 Patent.
`
`In the plurality of strands embodiment, “a plurality of strands 32 are
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`
`
`provided from a bulk thread supply 11” that “continuously delivers the plurality of
`
`strands 32 via strand guide A” (green), as illustrated below.
`
`Ex. 1001, 11:5-9, Fig. 7; Ex. 2001, ¶29.
`
`Weld strips 31 (orange in the image of Fig. 10, below) are placed above and
`
`below strands 32 and maintain the alignment of the strands.
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 11:50-60; Ex. 2001, ¶30.
`
`This process involves placing the first set of weld strips on a die of a welder,
`
`advancing the strands 32 over the weld strips, then placing the second set of weld
`
`strips over the strands, and welding the strips together “trap or capture” the strands
`
`inside the weld strips. Ex. 1001, 11:51-60, 12:31-32. This is illustrated in Fig. 7,
`
`below:
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`
`
`Strands 32 may also be joined to weld strips by alternative methods, such as using
`
`an adhesive or sewing device, instead of a welder. Ex. 1001, 11:38-44; Ex. 2001,
`
`
`
`¶32.
`
`The ’203 Patent refers to the collection of weld strips 31 and strands 32 as
`
`bulk material 30. Ex. 1001, 11:59-60; Ex. 2001, ¶33; see also Fig. 11:
`
`
`
`Tensioning structures 3 are created by “cutting down the center of weld strip 31” to
`
`divide the bulk material “into a plurality of smaller tensile sheets.” Ex. 1001,
`
`11:64-12:1; Ex. 2001, ¶34. Fig. 2, below, shows an exemplary completed
`
`tensioning structure 3 with weld strips 31 on both sides of the tensile sheet. See
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 2001, ¶34.
`
`
`
`This tensioning structure 3 can then be incorporated into an inflatable
`
`product, such as the mattress shown in Fig. 3, below, which includes upper and
`
`lower sheets (to which the tensioning structures are welded) and a side wall (all
`
`shown in blue):
`
`Ex. 1001, 12:17-18; Ex. 2001, ¶35.
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`B. Challenged Claims
`
`The ’203 Patent includes 29 method claims, 4 independent (claims 1, 12, 19,
`
`and 24) and 25 dependent. Bestway challenges Claims 1 and 6-29 (i.e., the
`
`Challenged Claims). Claim 1 is representative, and provided at pages 8-9 of the
`
`Petition (Paper 1).
`
`
`
`C. Prosecution History
`
`The ’203 Patent is a continuation of and claims priority to
`
`PCT/US2012/042079, which claims priority to several foreign applications filed on
`
`March 2, 2012. Ex. 1001, Title Page.
`
`During prosecution, the Examiner issued one Office Action and also
`
`considered prior art references and arguments presented in a third party
`
`submission; as a result, the examiner considered both Pennel and GB’023,
`
`Bestway’s two primary prior art references, and found the Challenged Claims to
`
`be patentable. Ex. 2001, ¶39.
`
`
`
`1. Office Action and Response
`
`Specifically, the Examiner rejected original Claims 1-11 and 19-23 under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph for “minor . . . issues of clarity,” but allowed
`
`original Claims 12-18 and 24-29. Ex. 1016, 507-08; Ex. 2001, ¶40.
`
`The Examiner expressly considered and applied four different references:
`
`(1) GB’023 (on which Bestway relies in Grounds 2 and 3 of the Petition); (2) U.S.
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent No. 7,694,372 to Boyd (Ex. 1005); (3) U.S. Patent No. 573,122 to Young
`
`(Ex. 1003); and (4) U.S. Patent No. 2,549,597 to Harris (Ex. 1004). See Ex. 1016,
`
`508-10; Ex. 2001, ¶41.
`
`The Examiner found these references deficient in several respects. Ex.
`
`1016, 509; Ex. 2001, ¶42. The Examiner noted,1 for instance, that none of these
`
`references taught “welding strips welded together with the tensile sheet positioned
`
`between them” nor “welding the tensioning structures to the upper and lower
`
`sheets in the claimed manner.” Ex. 1016, 509; see also Ex. 2001, ¶42. The
`
`Examiner also determined that these references failed to teach the claimed weld
`
`strips being positioned on “first and second sides of the tensile sheet,” as claimed.
`
`Ex. 1016, 509; Ex. 2001, ¶42.
`
`Intex responded by fixing the “minor . . . issues of clarity” and submitting
`
`that the claims were “believed to be in condition for allowance.” Ex. 1016, 500-
`
`01; Ex. 2001, ¶43.
`
`2. Third Party Submission
`
`
`
`Although Bestway does not substantively address it (Petition, 15-16), shortly
`
`1 Contrary to Bestway’s expert’s (Dr. Sadegh’s) testimony, (Ex. 1014, ¶¶ 56, 59),
`
`the Examiner explained that various limitations of the Challenged Claims were
`
`missing from the prior art teachings generally, and GB’023, in particular. Ex.
`
`1016, 509; Ex. 2001, ¶ 42 n.1.
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`
`
`after Intex’s response, an “anonymous” third-party submitted seven prior art
`
`references and corresponding arguments pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.290 (the “Third
`
`Party Submission”). Ex. 1016, 374-419. Pennel (Ex. 1002) and GB’023 (Ex.
`
`1008) were among those seven references. Id.
`
`
`
`a. Bestway was the “anonymous” third party
`
`Although the Third Party Submission was submitted “anonymously,”
`
`evidence strongly suggests that it was Bestway.
`
`
`
`Bestway was aware of the ’337 Application (i.e., the ’203 Patent
`
`application) as early as July 2014. Specifically, on July 30, 2014, Intex sent a
`
`letter to Bestway to provide notice of the ’337 Application and that Bestway’s
`
`Comfort Cell™ products would infringe the claims of the ’337 Application if they
`
`were granted. See Ex. 2007; Ex. 2011, ¶3. Uleses C. Henderson, Jr., of the Eclipse
`
`Group LLP, responded on behalf of Bestway to express its concern, informing
`
`Intex that Bestway did not want to “litigate these issues” and wanted “to explore a
`
`possible business solution” with Intex. See Ex. 2008; Ex. 2011, ¶4.
`
`
`
`Shortly thereafter, on January 5, 2015, Jennifer H. Hamilton, of Avyno Law
`
`P.C., filed the Third Party Submission. See Ex. 1016, 393. Ms. Hamilton and Mr.
`
`Henderson, Bestway’s counsel at the time, had previously been partners at the
`
`Eclipse Group. Ex. 2009; Ex. 2010, 97-101; Ex. 2012, ¶¶3-4. Sometime before
`
`the Third Party Submission, Ms. Hamilton and Mr. Henderson transitioned to
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`
`
`Avyno Law, which had the same office address of the Eclipse Group. Ex. 2010, 83
`
`(showing Mr. Henderson’s signature with an Avyno Law signature block); Ex.
`
`2012, ¶4; Ex. 1016, 393. At Avyno Law, Ms. Hamilton served as Bestway’s
`
`counsel with Mr. Henderson prosecuting Bestway applications at the time of the
`
`Third Party Submission. See Ex. 2010, 97, 101, 75-77, 82, 88-89; Ex. 2012, ¶4.
`
`
`
`Given Bestway’s knowledge of and concern regarding the ’203 Patent
`
`application, and Jennifer’s direct connection to Bestway, there can be little doubt
`
`that Bestway was behind the Third Party Submission.
`
`
`
`b. Pennel
`
`The Third Party Submission petitioner submitted Pennel as a reference
`
`“material to the patentability” of the ’337 Application. Ex. 1016, 342-53; Ex.
`
`2001, ¶45. The petitioner argued that Pennel anticipated every pending claim and
`
`attempted to rely on Pennel’s Fig. 2 (below) to support its arguments. Ex. 1016,
`
`343; Ex. 2001, ¶45.
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner argued that Pennel’s “upper wall 1 made of rubberized fabric,”
`
`“lower wall 2 made of rubberized fabric,” and “connecting strip 3” (not shown
`
`above) were “analogous to the upper sheet, lower sheet, and sidewall recited in
`
`Claim[s] 1–29.” Ex. 1016, 343; Ex. 2001, ¶46. The petitioner further claimed that
`
`the “thread-like elements” of Pennel’s ties 4 were “analogous to the tensile sheet
`
`recited in Claims 1–29,” and that Pennel’s “[b]ands 6, 7 and 12, 13” were
`
`“analogous to the first, second, third, and fourth weld strips recited in Claims 1-
`
`29.” Id. That is, the petitioner made the same arguments Bestway makes in its
`
`Petition. Cf. Petition at 33-63 (Ground 1).
`
`
`
`c. GB’023
`
`The Third Party Submission petitioner also submitted GB’023 as a reference
`
`“material to the patentability” of the ’337 Application, arguing that the “air
`
`cushion” disclosed in GB’023 was “similar in structure to the air mattress
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`
`
`produced by the methods recited in Claims 1-29.” Ex. 1016, 391-96; Ex. 2001,
`
`¶47.
`
`
`
`Petitioner argued that GB’023’s “upper and lower layers i” and “sidewall b”
`
`(not shown above) were “analogous to the upper sheet, lower sheet, and sidewall
`
`recited in Claim[s] 1-29.” Ex. 1016, 392; Ex. 2001, ¶48. The petitioner also
`
`claimed that GB’023’s “cross members d . . . compris[ing] a plurality of small
`
`holes f extending from a first side of the cross member to a second side of the cross
`
`member” were “similar to the tensioning structures recited in Claims 1-29,” and
`
`that GB’023’s “rubber strips j” were “analogous to the first, second, third, and
`
`fourth weld strips recited in Claims 1-29.” Id. The petitioner further noted
`
`GB’023’s “rubber tube (cid:1857)(cid:2869) with an inlet valve (cid:1857)(cid:2870) . . . for inflating and deflating the
`
`air cushion.” Ex. 1016, 393; Ex. 2001, ¶48. Again, these are the same arguments
`
`Bestway makes here. Cf. Petition at 64-80 (Grounds 2-3).
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`3. Notice of Allowance
`
`After considering the Third Party Submission (Ex. 1016, 319-21), on April
`
`22, 2015, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance for Claims 1-29. Ex. 1016,
`
`307-13.
`
`
`
`D. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`The parties do not dispute the relevant technical field or the education and
`
`experience of a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”). Ex. 2001, ¶50;
`
`Ex. 1014, ¶42.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`In IPR, claims are given their “broadest reasonable construction” in light of
`
`the claims, specification, and the prosecution history. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`
`
`A. “welding” / “welded” / “welder”
`
`Based on the claims and specification of the ’203 Patent, claims from a
`
`related patent (U.S. Pat. No. 8,562,773 (“the ‘’773 Patent”)),2 and a technical
`
`dictionary definition, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “welding” (and its
`
`past tense, “welded”) is “joining thermoplastics by application of temperatures
`
`high enough to melt the materials so that they fuse to a permanent union on
`
`2 The ’203 Patent and the ’773 Patent (Ex. 2002) are both continuations of and
`
`claim priority to PCT/US2012/042079. See Ex. 1001, Title Page; Ex. 2002, Title
`
`Page.
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`
`
`cooling,” and a “welder” is “a device for welding.” Ex. 2001, ¶¶70, 81. To be
`
`clear, these constructions exclude other methods of joining materials, such as by
`
`adhesive using an adhesion device or sewing, which is where this construction and
`
`Bestway’s proposed construction diverge. Id.; Petition, 32.
`
`
`
`1. The intrinsic evidence strongly supports these constructions
`
`First, the claims strongly support these constructions. Claims 1, 12, 19, 22,
`
`24, 26, and 28-29 recite “welding,” Claim 1 recites “welded,” and Claim 21 recites
`
`“welder.” See Ex. 1001;3 see also Ex. 2001, ¶¶71-73. These claims use these
`
`terms to describe joining two or more pieces of material to one another in a
`
`particular way—welding—using a particular device—a welder. See id.
`
`Second, the specification clearly distinguishes welding using a welder from
`
`other types of connecting. It is well-settled that “when a patent drafter discloses
`
`but declines to claim subject matter, as in this case,” the claims do not cover the
`
`disclosed but unclaimed subject matter. Johnson & Johnston Assoc. Inc. v. R.E.
`
`Service Co., Inc., 285 F.3d 1046, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc); see also Sontag
`
`Chain Stores Co. Ltd. v. Nat'l Nut Co. of California, 310 U.S. 281, 293 (1940).
`
`Here, the ’203 Patent specification confirms that Intex’s proposed construction is
`
`consistent with the description of “welder” and “welding” and, further, that
`
`3 Bestway incorrectly contends that the term “welder” appears in Claim 15. See
`
`Petition, 32; Ex. 1001, Claim 15.
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`
`
`“welder” and “welding” are distinct means for connecting materials to one another.
`
`Ex. 1001, 11:38-44, 16:6-11. By contrast, using an adhesive with a different type
`
`of device—i.e., an adhesion device—is disclosed but unclaimed. Ex. 2001, ¶74.
`
`Specifically, the ’203 Patent describes a “welder” 40 as “a thermofusion
`
`device” that “us[es] heat to join two plastic materials together” or “a high-
`
`frequency welder” that uses “electromagnetic waves [to] take advantage of
`
`excitable chemical dipoles in the plastic material to soften and join the materials to
`
`one another.” Ex. 1001, 11:32-36; Ex. 2001, ¶¶75, 77. These descriptions are
`
`consistent with Intex’s proposed construction of “welding” and “welder.” Ex.
`
`2001, ¶¶70, 75; 77-78.
`
`The specification also draws a clear distinction between welding using a
`
`welder and other types of connecting, such as using adhesive or sewing and their
`
`corresponding machines. Ex. 2001, ¶76. The ’203 Patent specifically states that
`
`an “alternative is to forgo a welding process and use adhesive to join the strands
`
`32 to weld strips 31” in which “welder 40 may be replaced by a similarly
`
`arranged adhesive device, such as a gluing device.” Id. at 11:38-42 (emphasis
`
`added); Ex. 2001, ¶¶76-78. The ’203 Patent further describes, as “yet another
`
`alternative” to welding, a “sewing machine to mechanically join weld strips 31 to
`
`strands 32.” Id. at 11:42-44 (emphasis added); see also id. at 16:6-11(same); Ex.
`
`2001, ¶¶76-78. By “disclos[ing] but declin[ing] to claim” joining by adhering or
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`
`
`sewing, Intex clearly demonstrated that the terms “welding,” “welded,” and
`
`“welder” exclude these other methods. See Johnson & Johnston, 285 F.3d at 1054.
`
`
`
`2. The ’773 Patent claims strongly support these constructions
`
`The claims of the related ’773 Patent further support this distinction.
`
`Ordinarily, the Board must “interpret claims consistently across patents having the
`
`same specification.” In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Lit., 639 F.3d
`
`1303, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2011). For that reason, the Board may consult the claims of
`
`related patents, such as the ’773 Patent, in construing the terms of the Challenged
`
`Claims. See id.
`
`The claims of the ’773 Patent further demonstrate that the term “welder”
`
`(and, by extension, “welding”) is a distinct connection method. Ex. 2001, ¶79.
`
`See Ex. 2002, Claim 1 (“positioning the plurality of strands into at least one of a
`
`welder and an adhesive device” and “activating the welder or adhesive device …
`
`.” (emphasis added)); Ex. 2001, ¶79. Indeed, it would be nonsensical for the term
`
`“welder” to encompass any means for fixedly connecting the weld strips, such as
`
`an adhesive device, as Bestway proposes (Petition, 32), because Claim 1 of the
`
`’773 Patent would then cover “activating the [adhesive device] or adhesive device
`
`to fixedly connect . . . .” Ex. 2001, ¶79; see also Katz, 639 F.3d at 1325 (finding
`
`the term “customer number” was “distinct from a credit card number” because the
`
`claims of a related patent “treat[ed] the two elements as distinct”).
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`3. A technical dictionary definition further supports these
`constructions
`
`A technical dictionary supports Intex’s proposed construction. See
`
`Condensed Chemical Dictionary (14th Ed. 2001) (Ex. 2004) (defining “welding”
`
`as “joining thermoplastics by application of temperatures high enough to melt the
`
`materials so that they fuse to a permanent union on cooling”).
`
`
`
`4. Bestway’s construction s