throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 11
`
` Entered: January 23, 2019
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`QUEST USA CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`POPSOCKETS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`____________
`
`
`
`Before CHRISTA P. ZADO, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
`STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZADO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a);
`Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder or Consolidation
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) or
`35 U.S.C. § 315(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a)
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner, Quest USA Corp.,1 filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–3 and 6 (“challenged claims”)
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,560,031 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’031 patent”). Pet. 7.
`Patent Owner, PopSockets LLC,2 filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 10
`(“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314. Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, the
`Board “may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless . . .
`the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of
`the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that the
`information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of
`the ’031 patent.
`
`
`1 Petitioner identifies itself and Isaac Srour as real parties-in-interest in this
`proceeding pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8. Pet. 3.
`2 Patent Owner identifies itself as real party-in-interest in this proceeding
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8. Paper 3, 2.
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`
`The ’031 Patent
`A.
`The ’031 patent, titled “Extending Socket for Portable Media Player,”
`was filed on February 23, 2012. Ex. 1001, at [22]. The ’031 patent claims
`priority to Provisional Application No. 61/453,375, filed March 16, 2011.
`The ’031 patent specification (“Specification”) describes extending
`sockets for attaching to the back of a portable media player or media player
`case. Ex. 1001, at [57]. The Summary of Invention lists a number of
`purposes for the extending sockets, including
`storing headphone cords and preventing the cords from tangling,
`forming stand legs, forming gaming grips, clipping to belts,
`waistbands and shirt pockets, forming legs for wedging [media]
`players that are phones between the shoulder and ear, and
`forming a grip that allows a user to securely hold and manipulate
`the [media] player with one hand.
`
`
`Id. at 1:37–45. Figures 6–11 depict some of these uses of the extending
`sockets.
`With respect to the embodiment depicted in Figures 1 through 3,
`“socket 24 generally comprises a collapsible accordion 2.” Id. at 4:44–45.
`Figure 3A is reproduced below.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 3A. Figure 3A illustrates a preferred embodiment of accordion 2
`in its expanded configuration. Accordion 2 includes “a folding section 29
`comprising a series of relatively rigid walls 10, 11, and 12 interspersed with
`flexural (or ‘living’) hinges 9, which flex as accordion 2 is collapsed or
`expanded.” Id. at 5:50–53. In this embodiment, “button 1 is attached to the
`distal end of accordion 2.” Id. at 4:46–47.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`
`Figure 5 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 5 shows accordion 2 in its collapsed configuration. Id. at 6:7–10. In
`the collapsed configuration illustrated in Figure 5, the “flexing of hinges 9
`allows walls 10 and 11 to fold up in a generally parallel configuration next
`to one another, rather than stacking on top of one another.” Id. at 6:11–13.
`The Specification discloses an alternative accordion structure that
`allows “the buttons to extend not just straight outward from the case, but
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`also to curve away from the outward axis at various oblique angles.” Id. at
`2:7–10. Figure 3B, reproduced below, depicts such a structure.
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 3B. Figure 3B shows folding sections 29A comprising flexible
`membranes including hinges. Id. at 5:57–58. The Specification states that
`the structure in Figure 3A forms a cone that “allows walls 8, 10, 11, 12 to
`fold next to one another (as shown in FIG. 5) rather than stacking on top of
`one another as is the case with the embodiment of [Figure] 3B.” Id. at 5:58–
`63.
`
`Related Cases
`B.
`According to the parties, Patent Owner has asserted the ’031 patent
`
`against Petitioner in the following proceeding: PopSockets LLC v. Quest
`USA Corp., et al., No. 1-17-cv-03653 (E.D.N.Y.) (filed June 16, 2017).
`Pet. 3; Paper 3, 2. Patent Owner contends the ’031 patent has also been
`asserted in the following additional proceedings: PopSockets LLC v. Digital
`Metro USA, Inc. d/b/a Wireless Stop and Akbar Tejani, No. 3-17-cv-02398
`(N.D. Tex.); PopSockets LLC v. GiftekTM LLC, et al., No. 8:17-cv-01825
`(C.D. Cal.); PopSockets LLC v. Craig Hueffner, Individual and d/b/a/
`Absolute Marketing, No. 2-17-cv-00827 (E.D. Wis.); and In the Matter of
`Certain Collapsible Sockets For Mobile Electronic Devices And Components
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-1056 (U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n).
`Paper 3, 2–3. The parties also identify the following request for inter partes
`review of the ’031 patent, filed by Petitioner: IPR2018-00497. Pet. 3;
`Paper 3, 2.
`
`Claims of the ’031 Patent
`C.
`Of the challenged claims, claim 1 is independent, and claims 2, 3, and
`6 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced
`below (with the same bracketing and lettering used by Petitioner):
`1. A portable media player case for housing a
`portable media player, comprising:
`[a] a case body for housing the portable media
`player; and
`[b] an extendable socket attached to the case body,
`[c] the socket including:
`an accordion forming a tapered shape capable of
`extending outward from the case body generally
`along its [axis] and retracting back toward the case
`body by collapsing generally along its axis, and
`[d] a foot disposed at the distal end of the accordion.
`Ex. 1001, 7:30–39 (brackets and lettering added); Pet. 28–30; see also id. at
`Certificate of Correction (correcting claim 1 as follows, “At Column 7, Line
`37, ‘its and’ should be – its axis and –”).
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`D.
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability. Pet. 7.
`Reference(s)
`Ground
`Claims
`§ 102(b)
`1–3 and 6
`§ 103(a)
`3 and 6
`§ 102(e)
`1 and 6
`§ 103(a)
`1–3 and 6
`
`Grinfas3
`Grinfas
`Karmatz4
`Karmatz and Mikol5
`
`
`
`To support its showing, Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Glenn
`E. Vallee, Ph.D. Ex. 1004 (“Vallee Declaration”).
`II. DISCUSSION
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A.
`Petitioner, citing the testimony of its declarant, Dr. Vallee, asserts that
`“[t]he prior art references show that a person of ordinary skill in the field, at
`the time the ’031 patent was effectively filed, would have either (1) five
`years or more of experience in mechanical product design, or (2) a
`bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering and one year or more of
`experience in mechanical product design.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 28).
`Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assessment of the level of
`ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 3.
`
`
`3 UK Patent Application GB 2 316 263 A (published Feb. 18, 1998).
`Ex. 1005 (“Grinfas”).
`4 Petitioner asserts “Karmatz” refers collectively to U.S. Patent Publication
`No. 2012/0042476 A1 (filed Oct. 26, 2010, issued Feb. 23, 2012), Ex. 1006
`(“Karmatz publication”), and U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/375,096,
`Ex. 1007 (“Karmatz provisional”). Pet. 6.
`5 Mikol, U.S. Patent No. 4,927,191 (issued May 22, 1990). Ex. 1009
`(“Mikol”).
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`
`For purposes of this Decision, and based on the record before us, we
`adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`Claim Construction
`B.
`In an inter partes review filed before November 13, 2018, claim terms
`in an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable construction in
`light of the specification of the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2016).6
`Consistent with that standard, we assign claim terms their ordinary and
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`art at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent disclosure.
`See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`(citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed.
`Cir. 1999)).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the terms “socket,” “accordion,”
`“foot,” “flexural hinge,” and “button.” Pet. 20–26. Patent Owner disagrees
`
`
`6 The Office recently changed the claim construction standard used in inter
`partes review proceedings. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018). As stated in the
`Federal Register notice, however, the new rule applies only to petitions filed
`on or after November 13, 2018, and, therefore, does not impact this
`matter. See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting
`Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83
`Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (stating “[t]his rule is effective on
`November 13, 2018 and applies to all IPR, PGR and CBM petitions filed on
`or after the effective date”).
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`with Petitioner’s proposed constructions and proposes its own constructions
`for these terms. Prelim. Resp. 4–23. For purposes of this Decision, we
`determine that no terms require express construction.
`
`Assertions of Unpatentability
`C.
`As indicated above, Petitioner asserts claims 1–3 and 6 are
`
`unpatentable based on the following references. Pet. 7.
`1. Overview of Grinfas (Ex. 1005)
`Grinfas is a UK patent application published on February 18, 1998.
`Ex. 1005, at [43]. Petitioner asserts Grinfas is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b). Pet. 5–6. Because Grinfas’s publication date is more than one
`year before the filing of the earliest application to which the ’031 patent
`claims priority, we are satisfied for purposes of this Decision that Grinfas is
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`Grinfas relates to a collapsible sound conduit for attaching to a
`cellular telephone. Id. at [57]. Grinfas states that a concern had arisen
`regarding the safety of users of portable hand-held cellular telephones,
`namely with regard to radiation emitted by such telephones. Id. at 1:8–11.
`To address such concern, Grinfas discloses a collapsible sound conduit
`placed between the telephone’s earpiece and the user’s ear, for enabling a
`user to maintain the telephone at a spaced distance away from the user’s
`head to reduce radiation exposure while nevertheless maintaining an
`acceptable level of hearing. Id. at 1:17–25. Figure 2 of Grinfas, reproduced
`below, illustrates an example of a collapsible sound conduit. Id. at 4:9–11.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 2. Figure 2 depicts user 32 with telephone 10. Collapsible
`conduit 30 is shown in an extended state, is between user 32 and
`telephone 10, and “enables a user 32 to space earpiece 20 [of telephone 10]
`from his/her head while nevertheless maintaining an acceptable level of
`hearing.” Id. at 7:24–25. Figure 1 depicts collapsible conduit 30 in a
`collapsed state when the conduit is not in use. Id. at 7:18–20, Fig. 1.
`Grinfas discloses that the collapsible sound conduit can be “attached
`to either the telephone or the carrying case,” by bonding or fastening. Id. at
`1:28–2:3. Bonding may be achieved with adhesive or adhesive pad 46, as
`illustrated in Figure 3. Id. at 8:6–9, Fig. 3. Fastening may be achieved with
`straps 54, as shown in Figures 4A–B. Id. at 8:10–17, Figs. 4A–B.
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`
`Grinfas discloses various embodiments of a collapsible sound conduit.
`“In a first embodiment, the collapsible sound conduit includes a plurality of
`telescoping sections.” Id. at 2:7–8. “In a second embodiment, the
`collapsible sound conduit includes a resilient portion which is collapsible
`and foldable into itself,” and may “further include a plurality of stiffeners”
`that may include ribs arranged to define an acoustical path and which may
`be adapted to limit collapsing of the conduit beyond a predetermined
`position. Id. at 2:12–19. “In a third embodiment, the collapsible sound
`conduit includes a bellows” that “may have a surface which is tiltable about
`a pivot.” Id. at 2:20–22. “In a fourth embodiment, the collapsible sound
`conduit includes a conduit pivotable about a pivot.” Id. at 2:23–24.
`2. Overview of Karmatz (collectively Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007)
`The Karmatz publication is a published U.S. patent application filed
`on October 26, 2010 and published on February 23, 2012. Ex. 1006, at [22],
`[43]. The Karmatz publication claims priority to the Karmatz provisional
`filed on August 19, 2010. Id. at [60]; see also Ex. 1007. Petitioner asserts
`Karmatz is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 6. Because the filing
`date of the Karmatz publication is prior to the filing of the earliest
`application to which the ’031 patent claims priority, March 16, 2011, we are
`satisfied for purposes of this Decision that the Karmatz publication is prior
`art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`Karmatz relates to an “apparatus for gripping a handheld device.”
`Ex. 1006, Abstract, ¶ 3. Karmatz states that the “use of handheld electronic
`devices such as Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) and smartphones, has
`increased significantly.” Id. ¶ 5. According to Karmatz, the use of large
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`touch-screen displays on such devices, “although allowing a user to easily
`access a large touch screen, may create difficulty for users to securely grip
`these devices with a single hand, which results in users frequently dropping
`and damaging their devices.” Id. ¶¶ 5–6. To address the issue of securely
`gripping these devices, Karmatz discloses “a finger grip apparatus for a
`handheld device.” Id. ¶ 11.
`Figure 1 of Karmatz, reproduced below, illustrates “a conventional
`hand-held device gripped by a user’s hand.” Id. ¶ 14, Figs. 1A–B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`Id. at Figs. 1A–B. Figures 1A–B depict handheld device 10 being gripped
`by a user’s hand, and in particular, depict with a dotted line the range of
`motion of the user’s thumb on device 10’s touch screen. Id. ¶ 8. “In order
`to reach other areas of the front surface of the handheld device 10 with the
`user’s thumb, a user must either reposition the device with a similar grip . . .
`or a user must use a relaxed grip.” Id. ¶ 9. “In either case, a user must grip
`the handheld device 10 less securely and/or shift the handheld device 100
`with respect to the user’s hand, in order for a user to access an entire range
`of the front surface [] of the device with the user’s thumb.” Id. “Therefore,
`there is a need for an apparatus for securely holding devices [] with a single
`hand while allowing greater range of movement of a user’s fingers while
`holding the device.” Id. ¶ 10.
`Figure 3 of Karmatz illustrates “a grip device having a base integrated
`into a sleeve of a handheld device,” and Figure 4 illustrates another
`embodiment of a grip device that “allows a user to rest fingertips along the
`back of the handheld device 140 instead of wrapping fingers around an
`entire back of the handheld device 140.” Id. ¶¶ 16, 27, Figs. 3–4. Figure 4
`is reproduced below.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`
`
`Ex. 1006, Fig. 4. Figure 4 depicts handheld device 140 with grip 130
`attached thereto. Id. When device 140 “is a touch-screen device, the finger
`grip apparatus allows a user to rest fingertips along the back of the handheld
`device 140 instead of wrapping fingers around an entire back of the
`handheld device 140.” Id. ¶ 27. The positioning shown in Figure 4 “allows
`a user’s thumb to more easily reach an entire range of a touch screen,
`thereby allowing a user to more easily operate a touch-screen device with a
`single hand.” Id. Figures 4–25 of Karmatz illustrate embodiments of
`various grip devices.
`3. Overview of Mikol (Ex. 1009)
`Petitioner asserts Mikol is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 7.
`
`Mikol issued as a patent on May 22, 1990 (Ex. 1009, at [45]), more than one
`year prior to the earliest possible priority date of the ’031 patent claims.
`Therefore, Mikol is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`
`Mikol generally relates to “an adjustable tubular wall structure for
`tubular connectors, conduits, containers, and the like, and more particularly,
`to a pleated tubular body that is extensible [and] [] contractible . . . both
`longitudinally and laterally . . . and [] may be angled relative to its central
`axis” for accommodating a connection between out of alignment discharge
`and intake ports, for example in the field of plumbing and installation of
`drain systems. Ex. 1009, 1:7–17, 7:45–46. Mikol relates also to “an
`adjustable, non-cylindrical wall structure, particularly designed for
`containers,” which is extensible and contractible, both longitudinally and
`laterally, may be angled relative to its central axis, may be contracted into a
`“nested” configuration, and is “particularly well adapted to serve as a
`pouring spout or other adjustable spout.” Id. at 1:18–27.
`4. Asserted Anticipation by Grinfas
`As we discussed above, Petitioner asserts claims 1–3 and 6 are
`unpatentable as anticipated by Grinfas. Pet. 27–39. Patent Owner responds
`that Grinfas does not anticipate these claims. Prelim. Resp. 23–28. For the
`foregoing reasons, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood that at least one claim of the ’031 patent is unpatentable as
`anticipated by Grinfas.
`
`a. Claim 1
`The preamble of claim 1 recites “[a] portable media player case for
`housing a portable media player, comprising.” For disclosure of a portable
`media player, Petitioner relies on Grinfas’s cellular telephone 70, and relies
`on carrying case 71 for disclosure of a portable media player case for
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`housing the portable media player. Pet. 27. Patent Owner does not dispute
`that Grinfas discloses the preamble of claim 1.
`For limitation 1[a], which recites “a case body for housing the
`portable media player,” Petitioner asserts carrying case 71 includes a case
`body for housing cellular telephone 70, as depicted in Figure 6 of Grinfas.
`Id. at 28. Patent Owner does not dispute that Grinfas discloses this claim
`limitation.
`For limitation 1[b], which recites “an extendable socket attached to
`the case body,” Petitioner relies on Grinfas’s disclosure of collapsible
`conduit 72 attached to carrying case 71. Id. at 28–29. For the requirement
`that the socket be attached to the case body, Petitioner relies on disclosure
`that collapsible conduit 72 “may be integrally formed with carrying
`case 71.” Id. at 29 (quoting Ex. 1005, 9:2–3). Petitioner relies also on
`disclosure that the conduit may alternatively “be manufactured separately for
`later attachment thereto, such as by bonding, either by a manufacturer or a
`user.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1005, 9:3–5 and citing id. at 1:26–2:6, 8:3–17).
`Patent Owner does not dispute that Grinfas discloses this claim limitation.
`Limitation 1[c] recites that the socket includes “an accordion forming
`a tapered shape capable of extending outward from the case body generally
`along its [axis] and retracting back toward the case body by collapsing
`generally along its axis.” Petitioner relies on the collapsible conduit
`embodiment of Figures 7A–B of Grinfas, reproduced below. Pet. 29–30.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, Figs. 7A–B. Figure 7A illustrates collapsible conduit 80 in an
`extended configuration, and Figure 7B illustrates the collapsed
`configuration. Id. at 9:9–12. Conduit 80 comprises resilient portions 82
`interspersed with recesses 84. Id. at 9:15, 9:22. Resilient portions 82 are
`made of “any elastometric material . . . with a suitable durometer” so that
`conduit 80 “has sufficient stiffness or hardness when fully extended.” Id. at
`9:13–18. Recesses 84 “increase the foldability of collapsible sound
`conduit 80.” Id. at 9:21–23. Petitioner argues that Grinfas discloses that
`conduit 80 is an accordion having a tapered shape capable of extending and
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`retracting by collapsing generally along its axis, as recited in claim 1.
`Pet. 29–30.
`There is no dispute that conduit 80 has a tapered shape and is capable
`of extending and retracting along its axis. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 24–25
`(Grinfas “has an ‘extended state when in use,’” and “a ‘collapsed state when
`not in use,’” and “Figs. 7A and 7B (relied on in the Petition) depict
`‘respective extended and collapsed states’ of an embodiment of the sound
`conduit 80”) (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract, 1:18–19, 5:4–7, 9:9–10:7, Figs. 7A–
`B). Patent Owner disputes, however, whether conduit 80 is an accordion.
`Id. at 25 (“Grinfas, and in particular Figs. 7A and 7B, fails to disclose an
`accordion.”).
`The ’031 Specification states that the disclosed sockets “include
`extending elements, called ‘accordions,’ comprising cylindrical or conical
`membranes with flexural hinges having feet at their distal ends.” Ex. 1001,
`1:45–48. Figures 3A–B illustrate “a preferred embodiment of accordion 2 in
`detail.” Id. at 5:48–50. The Specification states that accordion 2 “includes a
`folding section 29 comprising a series of relatively rigid walls 10, 11, 12
`interspersed with flexural (or ‘living’) hinges 9, which flex as accordion 2 is
`collapsed or expanded.” Id. at 5:50–53. Figure 5 depicts accordion 2 in a
`collapsed configuration. Id. at 6:7–31, Fig. 5. In the collapsed configuration
`shown in Figure 5, flexing of hinges 9 allows walls 10 and 11 to fold up
`generally in parallel to each other, rather than stacking on top of one another.
`Id. at 6:7–31, Fig. 5. Based on the Specification, we determine on the
`preliminary record that the term “accordion” includes structures that have
`flexural hinges. We find sufficient evidence for purposes of institution that,
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`as disclosed in Grinfas, recesses 84 (shown in Figure 7A) form flexural
`hinges that flex and fold, thus facilitating the retracted conduit configuration
`depicted in Grinfas’s Figure 7B. Ex. 1005, Figs. 7A, 7B. We are persuaded
`Petitioner has made a sufficient showing, at this stage of the proceeding,
`with regard to this claim limitation.
`Patent Owner argues that an accordion, properly construed, is “a
`structure with pleated folds so as to collapse like the bellows of a musical
`accordion.” Prelim. Resp. 10. Patent Owner argues “pleated folds are not
`merely a feature that accordions have in some configuration(s), but rather
`the mechanism by which accordions collapse.” Id. at 25. According to
`Patent Owner, because the collapsible conduit depicted in Figures 7A–B of
`Grinfas does not include pleated folds in the extended configuration, the
`conduit is not an accordion. Id. Patent Owner asserts Grinfas is “silent as to
`how the structure collapses.” Id. at 26. Patent Owner acknowledges
`recesses 84 increase foldability of collapsible conduit 80, but states,
`“[w]hatever mechanism the structure of Figs. 7A and 7B is supposed to
`employ for collapse, it is not pleated folds, and it is therefore not an
`accordion.” Id.
`We find Grinfas provides more information regarding how conduit 80
`collapses than is indicated by Patent Owner’s arguments. Figure 7B,
`illustrating conduit 80 in a collapsed state, depicts folds occurring at
`recesses 84. Ex. 1005, Figs. 7A, 7B. Figures 7A–B, combined with
`Grinfas’s disclosure that resilient portions 82 may include stiffeners or
`stiffening material to achieve sufficient stiffness when fully extended and
`with the disclosure that recesses 84 increase the foldability of collapsible
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`conduit 80 (id. at 9:15–23), provide sufficient disclosure of how conduit 80
`collapses for purposes of this stage of the proceeding.
`Regarding construction of the term “accordion,” on the current record,
`we do not find that the term precludes the structure illustrated in Figure 7A
`of Grinfas. Patent Owner’s proposal of limiting “accordion” to requiring
`“pleated folds so as to collapse like the bellows of a musical accordion” is
`not sufficiently supported by the intrinsic evidence. On the current record,
`we are not persuaded that the Specification or file history limit the claimed
`accordion to a structure that collapses like the bellows of a musical
`accordion.
`Limitation 1[d] recites “a foot disposed at the distal end of the
`accordion.” In the embodiments of the ’031 Specification, the distal end of
`the accordion is the end opposite the end with the securing element. See
`Ex. 1001, 4:47–48, Fig. 1 (describing button 1 attached at the distal end of
`the accordion). As an example of a foot, the Specification discloses “buttons
`may snap onto the ends of the accordions, be glued on, or be feet integrally
`formed with the accordions.” Id. at 2:10–12. Petitioner argues that if the
`term “foot” is interpreted to mean the distal end of the accordion, the distal
`end of conduit 82 in Grinfas discloses a “foot.” Pet. 30–31. Petitioner
`argues that if “foot” must be a structure separate from the accordion,
`Grinfas’s user listening portion 88 at the end of conduit 82 discloses a foot.
`Id. at 31. Patent Owner does not dispute that Grinfas discloses this claim
`limitation.
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing that
`claim 1 is anticipated by Grinfas.
`b. Claim 2
`Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and further recites “[t]he case of claim
`1 wherein the accordion comprises rigid walls interspersed with flexural
`hinges.” Ex. 1001, 7:40–41. Petitioner relies on resilient portions 82 having
`resilient portions 82 and recesses 84 for disclosure of rigid walls interspersed
`with flexural hinges. Pet. 31–32. We agree with Petitioner on the current
`record that Grinfas’s resilient portions 82 are interspersed with recessed
`portions 84, as illustrated in Figure 7A. Ex. 1005, Fig. 7A. Patent Owner
`raises the same arguments for claim 2 that it raises for claim 1. Prelim.
`Resp. 23–28.
`
`c. Claim 3
`Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and further recites “[t]he case of
`claim 3 wherein the tapered shape comprises a cone shape constructed and
`arranged such that the walls fold generally parallel to the axis of the
`accordion when the accordion is collapsed.” Ex. 1001, 7:42–45. For this
`claim, Petitioner relies on Figure 7 of Grinfas. Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1005,
`Fig. 7B; Ex. 1004 ¶ 70). Dr. Vallee acknowledges that “Grinfas does not
`expressly disclose whether the embodiment disclosed in Figures 7A and 7B
`(shown in cross-section only) has a square base or a circular base.”
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 70. He states, nonetheless, that it is reasonable to infer that it has
`any of the bases shown in Figures 2–6 (square) or Figures 9–12 (circular).
`
`22
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`Id. Dr. Vallee further testifies that in a commercial context, the term “cone”
`includes “tapered shapes having a square base, such as a traffic cone.” Id.
`Patent Owner does not raise any arguments in its Preliminary
`Response directed to the “cone shape” requirement of claim 3 as to this
`ground. At this stage of the proceeding, we note that Petitioner’s
`contentions, and Dr. Vallee’s testimony, do not persuade us that Grinfas
`discloses a circular base in connection with the Figure 7 embodiment.
`Figure 7 depicts a particular structure comprising resilient portions 82
`interspersed with recessed portions 84 to increase foldability. Ex. 1005,
`9:13–23. In contrast, Figures 9–12 (which depict circular bases) are
`described as using telescoping sections as a means of collapsing the conduit.
`Id. at 10:23–11:22. Petitioner, and Dr. Vallee, do not explain sufficiently
`why one would have inferred that the structure illustrated in Figure 7 of
`Grinfas, which relies on thinner and thicker wall portions to collapse, would
`have had a circular base like the embodiments illustrated in Figures 9–12. In
`addition, Dr. Vallee’s testimony that a cone may have a square base, such as
`a traffic cone, is unavailing because the conduit in Figures 2–6 (having a
`square base) has square shaped cross sections throughout the conduit, unlike
`a traffic cone whose body has circular-shaped cross-sections.
`d. Claim 6
`Claim 6 depends from claim 1, and further recites “[t]he case of
`claim 1 further comprising a button attached to the foot, the button formed
`of a rigid material and extending radially past the foot.” Ex. 1001, 7:53–55.
`Patent Owner raises the same arguments for claim 6 that it raises for claim 1.
`Prelim. Resp. 23–28.
`
`23
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`
`5. Asserted Obviousness Over Grinfas
`Petitioner asserts that claims 3 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over
`Grinfas. Pet. 39–42. Patent Owner responds that claims 3 and 6 are not
`obvious in view of Grinfas because Grinfas does not disclose an accordion
`forming a tapered shape, and Petitioner does not argue that it would have
`been obvious to substitute the collapsible conduit in Grinfas with such an
`accordion. Prelim. Resp. 28–29. Above, we addressed the parties’
`arguments regarding disclosure in Grinfas of an accordion. With regard to
`claim 3, Patent Owner also argues that a “cone shape” requires a circular
`base, and Petitioner has not shown that it would have been obvious to
`modify the embodiment in Figure 7 of Grinfas to have a circular base. Id. at
`29. We note that Patent Owner does not address Dr. Vallee’s example of a
`traffic cone, which may have a square base (Ex. 1004 ¶ 70).
`6. Asserted Anticipation by Karmatz
`Petitioner asserts claims 1 and 6 of the ’031 patent are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Karmatz. Pet. 42–55.
`We are not persuaded Petitioner has shown Karmatz discloses “an
`accordion forming a tapered shape,” as recited in claim 1. Ex. 1001, 7:35
`(emphasis added). With regard to this recitation, Petitioner states only that
`“Karmatz discloses various extensions 120, including one extension 120
`shown in Figure 20 of the Karmatz publication that is an accordion forming
`a tapered shape.” Pet. 45. Petitioner cites paragraphs 29 and 43 and
`Figure 20 of the Karmatz publication, and to page 6 of the Karmatz
`provisional. Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 29, 43, Fig. 20; Ex. 1007, 6). The cited
`portions of the Karmatz publication disclose extension 120, asserted by
`24
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01294
`Patent 8,560,031
`
`Petitioner to be an accordion, as being “a single piece or a series of
`telescopic pieces 124 that expand/collapse together as the grip device moves
`from the open to the closed position.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 43. This description is
`consistent with Figure 20, which depicts telescoping structure 120. Page 6
`of the Karmatz provisional similarly describes a telescoping structure.
`Ex. 1007, 6. Petitioner offers no explanation as to why a telescoping
`structure with annular pieces that slide over one another would have been
`considered an “accordion,” as recited in claim 1. Dr. Vallee’s testimony,
`upon which Petitioner relies, adds nothing to Petit

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket