`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________________________
`IRONRIDGE INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`RILLITO RIVER SOLAR LLC d/b/a ECOFASTEN SOLAR
`Patent Owner
`_____________________________________
`Case to be Assigned
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`Claims 36, 38, 40, 42, and 43 of
`Patent No. 6,526,701
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 2 
`A. 
`Real Party in Interest - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ...................................... 2 
`B. 
`Related Matters - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .............................................. 2 
`C. 
`Lead/Back-up Counsel Information - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .............. 3 
`D. 
`Service Information - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ....................................... 3 
`III.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................. 4 
`IV.  TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ................................................................. 4 
`V.  OVERVIEW OF THE ‘701 PATENT ............................................................ 5 
`A. 
`The Specification ................................................................................... 5 
`B. 
`The file history of the ‘701 patent ......................................................... 9 
`1. 
`Originally Filed Claims Leading to Challenged Claim 36 ......... 9 
`2. 
`The patent applicant disclosed a Product Advertisement
`in an IDS. .................................................................................. 10 
`The patent examiner rejected claims 1 and 4 over the
`Product Advertisement, but allowed the “side wall”
`claim. ......................................................................................... 11 
`The patent applicants acquiesced to the examiner’s
`findings and narrowed their claims for allowance without
`argument. ................................................................................... 12 
`VI.  THE PATENT OWNER ADMITTED THAT THE PRODUCT
`ADVERTISEMENT WAS PRIOR ART DURING THE
`UNDERLYING LITIGATION ..................................................................... 13 
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 14 
`A. 
`Person of ordinary skill in the art ........................................................ 14 
`B. 
`Claim construction .............................................................................. 15 
`1. 
`“Connecting Element” is subject to construction under 35
`U.S.C § 112, para. 6. ................................................................. 16 
`Construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6 ............................ 17 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`X. 
`
`VIII.  OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................. 20 
`A. 
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested ............................................... 20 
`IX.  OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY REFERENCES ..................................... 23 
`A. 
`Product Advertisement ........................................................................ 23 
`B. 
`Alley, U.S. Patent No. 5,613,328 ........................................................ 24 
`C. 
`Stearns, U.S. Patent No. 5,609,326 ..................................................... 25 
`EXPLANATION OF HOW THE CONSTRUED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ............................................ 26 
`A. 
`Claims 36, 38, 40, 42, and 43 are obvious in view of the
`disclosure of the Product Advertisement as a base reference. ............ 26 
`1. 
`CHALLENGE NOS. 1-4: Claims 36, 38, 40, and 43 were
`obvious over the Product Advertisement in view of any
`of Taylor, Hablutzel, Funaki, or Nichols .................................. 26 
`a. 
`Claim 36 would have been obvious over the
`Product Advertisement in view of any of Taylor,
`Hablutzel, Funaki, or Nichols. ........................................ 26 
`(1) 
`The Product Advertisement discloses
`limitation 36(a) – “A roof mount,
`comprising:” ......................................................... 27 
`The Product Advertisement discloses
`limitation 36(b) – “a base member including
`a protrusion extending from a first surface of
`the base member, the base member
`including a connecting element,” ......................... 27 
`Product Advertisement discloses limitation
`36(c) – “an attachment mount defining a
`hollowed region for receiving the protrusion
`to form a compression fitting, wherein a
`substantially leak proof assembly is formed
`when the attachment mount is coupled to the
`base member by the connecting element
`with a sealing material placed between the
`attachment mount and the base member and
`the connecting element extends through the
`sealing material, and” ........................................... 29 
`
`(2) 
`
`(3) 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`(4) 
`
`Limitation 36(d) is taught by the
`combination of the Product Advertisement
`and any of Taylor, Funaki, Hablutzel, and
`Nichols. ................................................................. 32 
`(a) 
`The Product Advertisement discloses
`a block spacer. ............................................ 32 
`(b)  CHALLENGE NO. 1: The
`combination of the Product
`Advertisement and Taylor discloses
`all elements of limitation 36(d) – “ a
`spacer for extending the base member
`to a roof surface, the spacer including
`a side wall of the base member.” ............... 33 
`(c)  CHALLENGE NO. 2: The
`combination of the Product
`Advertisement and Funaki disclose all
`elements of limitation 36(d) – “a
`spacer for extending the base member
`to a roof surface, the spacer including
`a side wall of the base member.” ............... 37 
`(d)  CHALLENGE NO. 3: The
`combination of the Product
`Advertisement and Hablutzel disclose
`all elements of limitation 36(d) – “a
`spacer for extending the base member
`to a roof surface, the spacer including
`a side wall of the base member.” ............... 39 
`(e)  CHALLENGE NO. 4: The
`combination of the Product
`Advertisement and Nichols discloses
`all elements of limitation 36(d) – “a
`spacer for extending the base member
`to a roof surface, the spacer including
`a side wall of the base member.” ............... 43 
`Claim 38 would have been obvious over Product
`Advertisement in view of any of Taylor, Hablutzel,
`Funaki, or Nichols. ......................................................... 44 
`
`iii
`
`b. 
`
`

`

`2. 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`Claim 40 would have been obvious over the
`Product Advertisement in view of any of Taylor,
`Hablutzel, Funaki, or Nichols ......................................... 45 
`Claim 43 would have been obvious over the
`Product Advertisement in view of any of Taylor,
`Hablutzel, Funaki, or Nichols. ........................................ 46 
`CHALLENGE #5: Claim 42 would have been obvious
`over the Product Advertisement in view of any of Taylor,
`Hablutzel, Funaki, or Nichols and in further view of
`Ford. .......................................................................................... 47 
`Claims 36, 38, 40, 42, and 43 are obvious over Alley, US Patent
`No. 5,613,328 as a base reference. ...................................................... 49 
`1. 
`CHALLENGE NOS. 6-9– Claims 36, 40, and 43 would
`have been obvious over Alley in view of any of Taylor,
`Funaki, Hablutzel, or Nichols ................................................... 49 
`a. 
`Claim 36 would have been obvious over Alley in
`view of any of Taylor, Funaki, Hablutzel, or
`Nichols ............................................................................ 50 
`(1)  Alley discloses limitation 36(a) – “A roof
`mount, comprising:” ............................................. 50 
`(2)  Alley discloses limitation 36(b) – “a base
`member including a protrusion extending
`from a first surface of the base member, the
`base member including a connecting
`element,” ............................................................... 50 
`(3)  Alley discloses limitation 36(c) – “an
`attachment mount defining a hollowed
`region for receiving the protrusion to form a
`compression fitting, wherein a substantially
`leak proof assembly is formed when the
`attachment mount is coupled to the base
`member by the connecting element with a
`sealing material placed between the
`attachment mount and the base member and
`the connecting element extends through the
`sealing material,” .................................................. 52 
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`(4) 
`
`Limitation 36(d) would have been obvious
`over any of Taylor, Hablutzel, Funaki, or
`Nichols .................................................................. 54 
`(a)  CHALLENGE NO. 6: The
`combination of Alley and Taylor
`disclose all elements of limitation
`36(d) – “a spacer for extending the
`base member to a roof surface, the
`spacer including a side wall of the
`base member.” ............................................ 55 
`(b)  CHALLENGE NO. 7: The
`combination of Alley and Funaki
`disclose all elements of limitation
`36(d) – “a spacer for extending the
`base member to a roof surface, the
`spacer including a side wall of the
`base member.” ............................................ 55 
`(c)  CHALLENGE NO. 8: The
`combination of Alley and Hablutzel
`disclose all elements of limitation
`36(d) – “a spacer for extending the
`base member to a roof surface, the
`spacer including a side wall of the
`base member.” ............................................ 56 
`(d)  CHALLENGE NO. 9: The
`combination of Alley and Nichols
`disclose all elements of limitation
`36(d) – “a spacer for extending the
`base member to a roof surface, the
`spacer including a side wall of the
`base member.” ............................................ 57 
`Claim 40 would have been obvious over Alley in
`view of any of any of Taylor, Hablutzel, Funaki, or
`Nichols ............................................................................ 58 
`Claim 43 would have been obvious over Alley in
`view of any of Taylor, Hablutzel, Funaki or
`Nichols ............................................................................ 58 
`
`v
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`

`

`2. 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`
`
`CHALLENGE #10 – Claim 42 would have been obvious
`over Alley in view of any of Taylor, Hablutzel, Funaki,
`Nichols and in further view of Ford .......................................... 59 
`Claims 36, 38, 40, 42, and 43 would have been obvious over
`Stearns in light of other prior art references. ....................................... 60 
`1. 
`CHALLENGE NOS. 11-14 – Claims 36, 38, 40, and 43
`would have been obvious over Stearns in view of any of
`Taylor, Hablutzel, Funaki, or Nichols ...................................... 60 
`a. 
`Claim 36 would have been obvious over Stearns in
`view of any of Taylor, Funaki, Hablutzel, or
`Nichols ............................................................................ 60 
`(1) 
`Stearns discloses limitation 36(a) – “A roof
`mount, comprising:” ............................................. 60 
`Stearns discloses limitation 36(b) – “a base
`member including a protrusion extending
`from a first surface of the base member, the
`base member including a connecting
`element,” ............................................................... 61 
`Stearns discloses limitation 36(c) – “an
`attachment mount defining a hollowed
`region for receiving the protrusion to form a
`compression fitting, wherein a substantially
`leak proof assembly is formed when the
`attachment mount is coupled to the base
`member by the connecting element with a
`sealing material placed between the
`attachment mount and the base member and
`the connecting element extends through the
`sealing material” ................................................... 62 
`Limitation 36(d) is disclosed by the
`combination of Stearns and any of Taylor,
`Hablutzel, Funaki, or Nichols .............................. 63 
`(a)  CHALLENGE NO. 11 – The
`combination of Stearns and Taylor
`discloses all elements of limitation
`36(d) – “a spacer for extending the
`base member to a roof surface, the
`vi
`
`(2) 
`
`(3) 
`
`(4) 
`
`

`

`
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`spacer including a side wall of the
`base member.” ............................................ 64 
`(b)  CHALLENGE NO. 12: The
`combination of Stearns and Funaki
`discloses all elements of limitation
`36(d) – “a spacer for extending the
`base member to a roof surface, the
`spacer including a side wall of the
`base member.” ............................................ 64 
`(c)  CHALLENGE NO. 13: The
`combination of Stearns and Hablutzel
`discloses all elements of limitation
`36(d) – “a spacer for extending the
`base member to a roof surface, the
`spacer including a side wall of the
`base member.” ............................................ 65 
`(d)  CHALLENGE NO. 14: The
`combination of Stearns and Nichols
`discloses all elements of limitation
`36(d) – “a spacer for extending the
`base member to a roof surface, the
`spacer including a side wall of the
`base member.” ............................................ 66 
`Claim 38 would have been obvious over Stearns in
`view of any of Taylor, Hablutzel, Funaki, or
`Nichols ............................................................................ 67 
`Claim 40 would have been obvious over Stearns in
`view of any of Taylor, Hablutzel, Funaki, or
`Nichols ............................................................................ 67 
`Claim 43 would have been obvious over Stearns in
`view of any of Taylor, Hablutzel, Funaki, or
`Nichols ............................................................................ 67 
`CHALLENGE #15 – Claim 42 would have been obvious
`over Stearns in view of any of Taylor, Hablutzel, Funaki,
`or Nichols and in further view of Ford ..................................... 68 
`XI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 69 
`
`
`d. 
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l,
`174 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 51
`Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc.,
`145 F.3d 1303 (Fed.Cir.1998) ............................................................................ 51
`In re Dulberg,
`289 F.2d 522 (CCPA 1961) ................................................................................ 46
`Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,
`355 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 17
`
`Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc. and Mmi Holdings, Ltd v. Saint-Gobain
`Performance Plastics Rencol Ltd,
`IPR 2014-00309 .................................................................................................. 14
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`Perfect Web v. InfoUSA,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 33
`Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
`663 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 61
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 16
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................ 20, 21, 22
`35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6 ....................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ................................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 (a) .................................................................................................. 23
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1) ............................................................................................ 20
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 15
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2) .................................................................................... 20
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 17
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 26
`MPEP § 2143 ....................................................................................................passim
`MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C) ........................................................................................... 46
`U.S. Patent No. 3,394,516 .................................................................................. 20, 33
`U.S. Patent No. 4,321,745 .................................................................................. 21, 47
`U.S. Patent No. 5,370,202 .................................................................................. 21, 43
`U.S. Patent No. 5,425,209 .................................................................................. 20, 37
`U.S. Patent No. 5,609,326 .................................................................................. 22, 25
`U.S. Patent No. 5,609,326… .................................................................................... 63
`U.S. Patent No. 5,613,328 ............................................................................ 21, 24, 49
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,526,701 .................................................................................passim
`US. Patent No. 6,526,701 ............................................................................... ..passim
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`No.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT APPENDIX
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,526,701
`
`Declaration of Kimberly Cameron, Ph. D.
`
`Concept Roofline, http://www.conceptflatroofing.co.uk/system-
`types.php, disclosing figure of typical membrane roof (printed on
`June 26, 2017).
`
`As filed copy of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/731,100 (“the ‘100
`application”) (which led to ‘701 patent)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement, dated June 13, 2001, filed in the
`‘100 application.
`
`Product Advertisement, “Alpine Snowguards/Setting the Industry
`Standard SnowGuards for Every Roof Type” (March 27, 2000)
`
`Office Action, dated March 20, 2002, issued in the ‘100 application.
`
`Response to Office Action, dated June 20, 2002, filed in the ‘100
`application.
`
`Notice of Allowability, dated September 16, 2002, issued in the
`‘100 application.
`
`EcoFasten’s Responses to IronRidge’s First Set of Requests for
`Admission (May 4, 2017)
`
`EcoFasten’s Responses to IronRidge’s First Set of Interrogatories
`(April 13, 2017).
`
`Taylor, U.S. Patent No. 3,394,516
`
`Hablutzel, EP 0751751
`
`Certified translation of Hablutzel, EP 0751751.
`
`xi
`
`

`

`
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`Certification of translation of Hablutzel, EP 0751751.
`
`Funaki, U.S. Patent No. 5,425,209
`
`Nichols, U.S. Patent No. 5,370,202
`
`Ford, U.S. Patent No. 4,321,745
`
`Stearns, U.S. Patent No. 5,609,326
`
`Alley, U.S. Patent No. 5,613,328
`
`Declaration of Russell C. Petersen
`
`
`
`xii
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`IronRidge Inc. requests Inter Partes Review of independent claim 36 and
`
`dependent claims 38, 40, 42, and 43 of U.S. Patent No. 6,526,701 (“the ‘701
`
`patent”), attached as Exh. 1001. These claims relate to a roof mount that is affixed
`
`to a membrane roof and used to mount a structure to the roof, such as a railing to
`
`protect against falling snow. A membrane roof is a type of roof in which a layer of
`
`insulation is disposed on top of a roof deck, and a waterproofing membrane is
`
`disposed on top of the insulation. The layer of insulation is not a structural
`
`member, and to affix a roof mount to a membrane roof, the roof mount should be
`
`structurally attached through the insulation to the roof deck below.
`
`Claim 36 includes a roof mount having several elements, but most pertinent
`
`to this Petition, it includes a base plate and a spacer for extending the base member
`
`to a roof surface. During prosecution, the patentee admitted that a prior art
`
`publication disclosed every element of the claimed roof mount with a single
`
`exception: the claimed invention includes a spacer comprising a sidewall of the
`
`base plate, whereas the prior art discloses a base plate disposed on top of a wood
`
`block spacer. Thus, the dubious basis for allowance of claim 36 was that a roof
`
`mount with a base plate having sidewalls extending down was patentable over a
`
`roof mount with a base plate disposed on a block.
`
`
`
`[1]
`
`

`

`
`
`Even if this were a patentable distinction under the current law (the ‘701
`
`patent issued before KSR v. Teleflex), numerous prior art references that were not
`
`before the examiner disclose a spacer including a base plate with sidewalls
`
`extending down through insulation to a roof support structure. This is a classic
`
`case of a simple substitution of one known element (a plate on a block) for another
`
`(a plate with a sidewall) to obtain a predictable result. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
`
`Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). See also MPEP § 2143. Claim 36 is obvious in
`
`view of numerous references that were not considered by the examiner and that
`
`disclose the precise limitation on which patenability was based.
`
`The claims depending from independent claim 36 add nothing of note, and
`
`all claim elements from the dependent claims were well known to those of ordinary
`
`skill.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Party in Interest - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Petitioner certifies that the real party-in-interest is IronRidge Inc. of
`
`Hayward, California (“IronRidge”).
`
`B. Related Matters - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`The ‘701 patent is involved in ongoing litigation in the United District Court
`
`for the District of Arizona (“the Underlying Litigation”), between Petitioner
`
`IronRidge and the purported assignee of the ‘701 patent, Rillito River Solar LLC
`
`d/b/a EcoFasten Solar (“EcoFasten”). See Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-4156 (D.
`[2]
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Ariz.) (filed Nov. 30, 2016). The ‘701 patent is also involved in litigation in the
`
`District of Arizona between EcoFasten and Wencon Development, Inc. See Civil
`
`Action No. 2:16-cv-3245 (D. Ariz.). Wencon Development is not participating in
`
`this Petition. Petitioner is unaware of any further litigations involving the ‘701
`
`patent.
`
`C. Lead/Back-up Counsel Information - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioner designates the following counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Robert A. McFarlane
`Reg. No. 56,410
`Hanson Bridgett LLP
`425 Market Street, 26th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: 415-777-3200
`Facsimile: 415-541-9366
`
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Russell C. Petersen
`Reg. No. 53,457
`Hanson Bridgett LLP
`425 Market Street, 26th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: 415-777-3200
`Facsimile: 415-541-9366
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), Petitioner is filing a power of attorney of
`
`the above-designated counsel.
`
`D.
`
`Service Information - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`Please address all correspondence and service to counsel at the below
`
`address and via electronic service by email at:
`
`Robert A. McFarlane
`c/o Hanson Bridgett LLP
`425 Market Street, 26th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: 415-777-3200
`Facsimile: 415-541-9366
`
`
`
`[3]
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IronRidge-IPR@hansonbridgett.com
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`IronRidge certifies that the ‘701 patent is available for Inter Partes Review,
`
`and IronRidge is not barred or estopped from requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`challenging the claims of the ‘701 patent on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`IV. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`A short discussion of membrane roofs is helpful to understand the roof
`
`mount of the ‘701 patent. A membrane roof typically includes three elements as
`
`shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`See Exh. 1002, Declaration of Dr. Kimberly Cameron, Fig. 4 (citing Exh. 1003).
`
`In a membrane roof, a corrugated metal roof deck forms the structural roof.
`
`Id., ¶ 42. Often, the roof deck is secured to other structural elements such as the
`
`rafters or purlins. Id. This prevents the outer membrane from having to resist
`
`
`
`[4]
`
`

`

`
`
`forces created by the structures and related loads. Id. In addition, a wooden sub
`
`roof can be used instead of corrugated metal. See Figure 4 to the Cameron Decl..
`
`Id., and Fig. 4. A layer of insulation is attached to its exterior, i.e., on top of the
`
`roof deck. Id. A waterproof membrane forms the outer layer and creates a
`
`waterproof surface. Id.
`
`Membrane roofs are desirable because they are easy to install, have a long
`
`life, and are waterproof. Id., ¶ 43. But they are also considered “soft roofs”
`
`because the external insulation is not structural in nature. Id. Consequently, when
`
`attaching a structure such as a snow guard to the roof, it is desirable to have a
`
`structurally secure mount to avoid leaks and to have a product that is inexpensive
`
`and easy to install. Id.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘701 PATENT
`A. The Specification
`The ‘701 patent was filed on December 6, 2000 and claims priority to a
`
`provisional application filed on July 3, 2000. The ‘701 patent discloses a roof
`
`mount that can be “used to attach structures such as safety railings and snow
`
`guards to a roof.” See Exh. 1001, col. 1:9-10. The disclosed roof mount addresses
`
`difficulties of mounting to the insulation of a membrane roof on top of the roof
`
`deck:
`
`
`
`In certain applications, it is desirable to elevate base
`member 12 from deck surface 60, for example, to
`[5]
`
`

`

`
`
`account for the thickness of insulation 62 positioned
`between the deck surface 60 and membrane roofing 40.
`For this purpose, a base stand 70, described further
`below, having the same height as the insulation, is
`embedded within the insulation at desired anchoring
`points prior to laying of the membrane roofing 40.
`Id., col. 3:52-59.
`
`As disclosed below in Fig. 1 of the ‘701 patent, the roof mount 10 includes a
`
`base member 12 with protrusions 16 and connecting elements 24 extending
`
`upwardly. Id., col. 3:12-19. The roof mount 10 further includes an attachment
`
`mount 14 with hollowed regions to receive the protrusions 16 and connecting
`
`elements 24. Id., col. 3:19-22. A sealing material 13 placed between the base
`
`member 12 and the attachment mount 14. See id., col. 3:5-6.
`
`
`
`[6]
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`See Exh. 1002, Fig. 1 (reproducing and annotating Fig. 1 of the ‘701 patent).
`
`
`
`
`
`See Exh. 1002, Fig. 2(reproducing and annotating Fig. 2 of the ‘701 patent).
`
`As further shown in Fig. 1, a spacer 70 is disposed within a membrane roof.
`
`The roof includes a baffled roof deck 60 with insulation 62 disposed on top of the
`
`roof deck 60, and a water-proof membrane roofing 40 disposed on top of the
`
`insulation 62. See Exh. 1001, col. 3:52-55.
`
`The base stand 70 is disposed within the insulation 62 and acts as a spacer
`
`(i.e., a sub-mount) to mount the base member 12 to the structural baffled roof deck
`
`60. See id., col. 3:55-59 (“For this purpose, a base stand 70, described further
`
`below, having the same height as the insulation, is embedded within the insulation
`
`at desired anchoring points prior to laying of the membrane roofing 40.”).
`[7]
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Membrane patch 13 “is secured to roofing 40 by, e.g., glue or heat welding.”
`
`Id., col. 3:28-29. Further, the “securing of [attachment] mount 14 to base member
`
`12 compresses membrane patch 13 with the portions of membrane patch 13 located
`
`between hollowed regions 32 and protrusions 16 creating a substantially leak proof
`
`compression fitting.” Id., col. 3:33-37.
`
`In the embodiment relevant to independent claim 36, the base stand is
`
`described as follows:
`
`Referring to FIG. 8, another method of elevating a base
`member 12a is to include a vertical flange 104 around the
`periphery of base member 12a… Flange 102 is
`manufactured at varying heights, e.g., to match the height
`of the roof insulation 62. A hole is cut in membrane
`roofing 40, and base member 12a with bolts 24 is
`installed over insulation 62 using screws 56 with flange
`104 inserted into the roof insulation 62 and extending to
`the deck surface. A membrane patch 13 is then placed
`over base member 12.
`Exh. 1001, col. 5:9-20. As shown in Fig. 8:
`
`
`
`[8]
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The file history of the ‘701 patent
`1. Originally Filed Claims Leading to Challenged Claim 36
`In the originally-filed application, independent claim 1 did not recite the
`
`claimed spacer, nor the claimed flanges:
`
`1. A roof mount, comprising:
`a base member including a protrusion extending from a
`first surface of the base member, the base member
`including a connecting element, and
`an attachment mount defining a hollowed region for
`receiving the protrusion to form a compression fitting,
`wherein a substantially leak proof assembly is formed
`when the attachment mount is coupled to the base
`member by the connecting element with a sealing
`material placed between the attachment mount and the
`
`
`
`[9]
`
`

`

`
`
`base member and the connecting element extends
`through the sealing material.
`See Exh. 1004, p. 9.
`
`Originally-filed claim 4 depended from claim 1 and added the limitation of
`
`the spacer. Originally-filed claim 9 depended from claim 4 limited the spacer to a
`
`sidewall of the base member, as follows:
`
`4. The roof mount of claim 1, further comprising a
`spacer for extending the base member to a roof surface.
`
`Id.
`
`Id.
`
`9. The roof mount of claim 4, wherein the spacer
`comprises a side wall of the base member.
`
`2.
`
`The patent applicant disclosed a Product Advertisement in an
`IDS.
`The patent applicant filed an information disclosure statement on June 13,
`
`2001, where it disclosed a document entitled, “Product Advertisement, ‘Alpine
`
`Snowguards/Setting the Industry Standard/SnowGuards for Every Roof Type.’”
`
`(“the Product Advertisement”). See Exh. 1005, at 2. On the Information
`
`Disclosure Statement, the applicant indicated that the Product Advertisement
`
`published on March 27, 2000, i.e., over three months prior to the filing of the
`
`provisional patent application. See id. As detailed more fully in Section VI below,
`
`attached as Exhibit 1006 is a true and correct copy of the Product Advertisement
`
`
`
`[10]
`
`

`

`
`
`submitted along with the IDS (with production numbers added during the
`
`Underlying Litigation and relied on herein for ease of reference).
`
`3.
`
`The patent examiner rejected claims 1 and 4 over the Product
`Advertisement, but allowed the “side wall” claim.
`The examiner issued an office action rejecting claims 1 and 4 as anticipated
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by the Product Advertisement for its disclosure of two
`
`different models of roof mount: the Alpine Snowguard #15 (“ASG#15”) and the
`
`Alpine Snowguard #115 (“ASG#115”). See Exh. 1007. The ASG#15 and
`
`ASG#115 are very similar, and so for brevity, only ASG#115 is reproduced here:
`
`Exh. 1006, at IR000065.
`
`The examiner found that the disclosures of the ASG #15 and the ASG #115
`
`described every limitation of originally-filed claim 1. See Exh. 1007, at 3. The
`
`
`
`
`
`[11]
`
`

`

`
`
`examiner further rejected originally-filed claim 4 and found that ASG #15 and
`
`ASG #115 of the Product Advertisement disclosed “a spacer (wood block)
`
`extending the base member to a roof surface (steel