Paper ______
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`IRONRIDGE INC.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`RILLITO RIVER SOLAR, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-01681
`Patent 6,526,701
`
`Unopposed Motion to Correct Clerical Mistake in the Petition
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c)
`
`13917904.2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Further to the Board’s authorization via email sent on November 9, 2017 to
`
`file this Motion, Petitioner respectfully requests permission to file a Corrected
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c). (See Exh. A.) The
`
`originally-filed Petition for Inter Partes Review, filed on June 27, 2017 (“the
`
`Petition”) contains a small number of incorrect citations to the Declaration of Dr.
`
`Kimberly Cameron, Exh. 1002. Filed concurrently herewith is Exhibit B, a
`
`proposed Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review (“the Corrected Petition”), and
`
`Exhibit C, a red-lined copy of pages 64-66 comparing the pertinent pages of the
`
`Corrected Petition to the Petition. The changes identified in the red-lined copy of
`
`those three pages are the only changes Petitioner seeks permission to make.
`
`The Petition contains several Challenges to the patentability of the claims of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,526,701, based on three different primary references, each of
`
`which are independently combined with four secondary references, to assert the
`
`invalidity of independent claim 36.
`
`Despite careful attention to detail over the entirety of the Petition, in arguing
`
`that the claims were obvious over the combination of Stearns, U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,609,326 in view of Taylor, U.S. Patent No. 3,394,516, the Petition cites to
`
`paragraphs 116 and 117 of the Cameron Declaration, which testify that the claims
`
`would have been obvious over Alley, U.S. Patent No. 5,613,328 in view of Taylor.
`
`See Petition, at p. 64. These citations should have been made to the portion of the
`
`
`
`1
`
`13917904.2
`
`

`

`Cameron Declaration setting forth her testimony asserting that the claims would
`
`have been obvious over Stearns in view of Taylor. See Cameron Decl. at ¶¶ 132-
`
`135. The Replacement Petition merely revises the citations within the Petition to
`
`cite the correct paragraphs within the Cameron Declaration.
`
`Similar clerical errors were made on pages 65 and 66 within the Petition
`
`regarding the combination of Stearns and Funaki, U.S. Patent No. 5,425,209 and
`
`the combination of Stearns and Hablutzel, EP 0710751. Again, the Petition cites to
`
`paragraphs of the Cameron Declaration testifying that the claims would have been
`
`obvious over combinations of Alley and Funaki and Alley and Hablutzel. The
`
`Replacement Petition merely revises the citations within the Petition to cite to the
`
`correct paragraphs of the Cameron Declaration.
`
`“[W]hen determining whether to grant a motion to correct a petition, the
`
`Board will consider any substantial substantive effect, including any effect on the
`
`patent owner's ability to file a preliminary response.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48680, 48699.
`
`This Motion to Correct the Petition should be granted because the clerical
`
`errors had no effect on Patent Owner’s ability to file a response to the Petition. In
`
`fact, the Patent Owner’s Response points out the clerical error, and even points out
`
`the location in the Cameron Declaration dealing with Petitioner’s argument
`
`regarding Stearns in view of Taylor. See Patent Owner’s Response, at 49
`
`(“Cameron does have paragraphs dealing with the Stearns/Taylor combinations
`
`
`
`2
`
`13917904.2
`
`

`

`(Exh. 1012 [sic] ¶¶ 132-135), but Petitioner does not rely on those.”).1 The Patent
`
`Owner can claim no prejudice or surprise.
`
`Petitioner has provided a copy of this motion to counsel for the Patent
`
`Owner. The Patent Owner advised counsel for Petitioner on November 6, 2017
`
`that it does not oppose the motion, but Patent Owner does not agree with
`
`Petitioners’ substantive positions in the Petition or this Motion, and Patent Owner
`
`maintains its position that Petitioner improperly attempts to incorporate material by
`
`reference from the Cameron Declaration that is not separately argued in the
`
`Petition.
`
`Petitioner submits that the requested relief would benefit the public by
`
`providing a more accurate public record and ensuring that the Petition cites to the
`
`correct locations within the Cameron Declaration. No new matter, facts, or
`
`arguments are presented by way of this Motion. Accordingly, Petitioner requests
`
`permission under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c) to file the Replacement Petition for entry
`
`into the public record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Note that the Patent Owner’s Response has a clerical error of its own. The
`Cameron Declaration is Exh. 1002, not Exh. 1012.
`
`3
`
`13917904.2
`
`

`

`The undersigned attorneys welcome a telephone call should the Board have
`
`any additional requests or questions.
`
`Dated: / D - ~u D 1l - ~, l`~ 1 ~-
`
`---
`
`6,410)
`Russell C. Petersen (Reg. No. 53,457)
`HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
`425 Market Street, 26th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`rmcfarlane@hansonbridgett.com
`russ.petersen@hansonbridgett.com
`Telephone: (415) 777-3200
`Facsimile: (415) 541-9366
`
`Counsel for Ironridge Inc.
`
`4
`
`139179042
`
`

`

`Certificate of Service
`
`I certify that on this /D~ day of Jvov~~,~ ~2, , 2017, a copy of this
`
`Unopposed Motion to Correct Clerical Mistake in the Petition Under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(c) has been served in its entirety via electronic mail by emailing Patent
`
`Owner's counsel at Rillito River Solar, LLC's dbarker@swlaw.com,
`
`khayes@swlaw.com, and mark.williams@ecofastensolar.com email addresses
`
`provided in Patent Owner's Service Information in Patent Owner's Updated
`
`Mandatory Notices and Power of Attorney. Patent Owner has consented to
`
`electronic service.
`
`Dated: N~V 1 d ~.~ ~ ~
`
`R~ ectful
`
`u~r~i'~ted
`
`Robert A. McFarlane (Reg. No. 56410)
`Russell C. Petersen (Reg. No. 53457)
`HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
`425 Market Street, 26th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`rmcfarlane@hansonbridgett.com
`russ.petersen@hansonbridgett.com
`Telephone: (415) 777-3200
`Facsimile: (415) 541-9366
`
`Counsel for I~onridge Inc.
`
`5
`
`139179042
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit A
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Russell C. Petersen
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Thursday, November 9, 2017 6:41 AM
`Russell C. Petersen; Trials
`Robert A. McFarlane; 'dbarker@swlaw.com'; 'mark@mwwiplaw.com';
`'mark.williams@ecofastensolar.com'
`RE: IPR No. 2017-01681; Request for Permission to File Motion to Correct Clerical Error
`
`Counsel,
`
`The Board authorizes the motion described in your email below.
`
`Regards,
`
`Andrew Kellogg,
`Supervisory Paralegal
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`USPTO
`andrew.kellogg@uspto.gov
`Direct: 571-272-5366
`
`
`
`From: Russell C. Petersen [mailto:russ.petersen@hansonbridgett.com]  
`Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 4:08 PM 
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV> 
`Cc: Robert A. McFarlane <RMcFarlane@hansonbridgett.com>; 'dbarker@swlaw.com' <dbarker@swlaw.com>; 
`'mark@mwwiplaw.com' <mark@mwwiplaw.com>; 'mark.williams@ecofastensolar.com' 
`<mark.williams@ecofastensolar.com> 
`Subject: IPR No. 2017‐01681; Request for Permission to File Motion to Correct Clerical Error 
` 
`RE:          IPR No. 2017‐01681 
`                Request for Permission to File Motion to Correct Clerical Error Under 37 CFR 42.104(c) 
` 
`Dear Sir or Madam, 
` 
`Petitioner IronRidge hereby requests permission to file a Motion to Correct a Clerical Error in the above‐referenced 
`Petition.  The nature of the clerical error is that in a few instances, the Petition cites to incorrect paragraphs of the 
`associated Declaration of Kimberly Cameron, Ph. D.  Petitioner seeks to file a Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review 
`that cites to the correct paragraphs of the Cameron Declaration. 
` 
`Petitioner has met and conferred with counsel for the Patent Owner, and he does not oppose the filing of the Motion.   
` 
`Kind regards, 
`Russ Petersen 
`Reg. No. 53,457 
` 
` 
`
`
` Russell C. Petersen
`Senior Counsel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Hanson Bridgett LLP
`(415) 995-5816 Direct
`(415) 995-3530 Fax
`russ.petersen@hansonbridgett.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This communication, including any attachments, is confidential and may be protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any
`use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
`immediately notify the sender by telephone or email, and permanently delete all copies, electronic or other, you may have.
`The foregoing applies even if this notice is embedded in a message that is forwarded or attached.
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit B
`Exhibit B
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`_____________________________________
`IPR No. 2017-01681
`
`CORRECTED PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`Claims 36, 38, 40, 42, and 43 of
`Patent No. 6,526,701
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`b.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`2.
`
`B.
`
`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
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`(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
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`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)
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`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
`
`

`

`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`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. Pet