`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 40
`Date: March 25, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`APPLE INC. and AUGUST HOME, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MARK W. KILBOURNE,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00233
`Patent 7,373,795 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before GEORGE R. HOSKINS, RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, and
`JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00233
`Patent 7,373,795 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Apple Inc. and August Home, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a
`Petition (Paper 3, “Pet.”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 to institute an
`inter partes review of claims 11–20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,795 B2
`(“the ’795 patent”).
`Mark W. Kilbourne (“Patent Owner” or “Mr. Kilbourne”), the solely
`named inventor and the owner of the ’795 patent, filed a Preliminary
`Response (Paper 8).
`We instituted a trial to determine whether claims 11–17 are
`unpatentable, on all challenges to claims 11–17 presented in the Petition.
`Paper 13 (“Institution Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”), 2, 7, 37. We did not
`institute trial as to claims 18–20, because Patent Owner filed a statutory
`disclaimer of those claims prior to institution. Id. at 1, 32–34, 37.
`Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 17, “PO Resp.”)
`to the Petition. Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 20, “Pet. Reply”) to the
`Patent Owner Response. Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 25,
`“Sur-reply”) to Petitioner’s Reply.
`Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 33).
`Petitioner filed an Opposition (Paper 34) to the Motion. Patent Owner filed
`a Reply (Paper 35).
`An oral hearing was held, for which the transcript was entered into the
`record (Paper 38, “Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(4) and § 318(a). This
`Decision is a Final Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.73 as to the patentability of claims 11–17 of the ’795 patent. We
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00233
`Patent 7,373,795 B2
`
`determine Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
`claims 11–17 are unpatentable.
`
`BACKGROUND
`II.
`Real Parties in Interest and Related Proceedings
`A.
`Petitioner identifies Apple Inc.; August Home, Inc.; ASSA ABLOY
`Inc.; and ASSA ABLOY AB as real parties-in-interest. Pet. 1, 4–5, 7.
`Patent Owner identifies only himself, Mr. Kilbourne, as a real
`party-in-interest. Paper 6, 1. The parties identify one U.S. District Court
`litigation as related to this proceeding: Mark W. Kilbourne v. Apple Inc.,
`Case No. 4:18-cv-04619 (N.D. Cal.) (hereafter “the District Court
`Litigation”). Pet. 6; Paper 6, 1; Paper 32, 2.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s Pre-Institution Disclaimer of
`Claims 18–20 of the ’795 Patent
`The Petition asserts claims 18–20 of the ’795 patent are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 8, 57–70. Patent Owner disclaimed
`claims 18–20 prior to institution of trial, as discussed in the Institution
`Decision. Inst. Dec. 32–33; see also PO Resp. 27 (acknowledging
`disclaimer). Accordingly, we did not institute trial as to claims 18–20.
`Inst. Dec. 33–34. Therefore we do not address claims 18–20 any further.
`
`The ’795 Patent Disclosure
`C.
`Our discussion of the ’795 patent here focuses on the disclosures that
`pertain to the issues presented in this inter partes review, which are limited
`in scope.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00233
`Patent 7,373,795 B2
`
`
`The ’795 patent discloses systems and methods for electronically
`extending or retracting the deadbolt of an internal door locking apparatus,
`which are particularly useful in adapting an electronic actuator to
`pre-existing deadbolt systems. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 6:47–51, 6:65–7:19.
`Figure 5 of the ’795 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 5 of the ’795 Patent
`(partially exploded view of door and deadbolt activation apparatus).
`Id. at 1:6–10, 1:54–56. Figure 5 illustrates door 24 and standard internal
`deadbolt apparatus 28, wherein apparatus 28 includes deadbolt 27 and two
`bolts 25 (only one of which is shown). Id. at 4:41–43, 6:18–20, 6:24–31.
`Template unit 13 is secured to door 24, using bolts 25 and two brackets 21
`(only one of which is shown), on the side of door 24 facing the inside of the
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00233
`Patent 7,373,795 B2
`
`room to be secured. Id. at 6:24–38, 7:19–26. Motor and battery housing
`unit 7, with casing 3, is then attached to template unit 13. Id. at 7:52–57.
`Figure 2 of the ’795 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of the ’795 Patent
`(partially exploded bottom view of deadbolt activation apparatus).
`Id. at 1:48–49. Figure 2 illustrates gear encasement assembly 29, comprised
`of template unit 13 (also seen in Figure 5 above), along with gear casing 12
`and motor and battery housing unit carriage 17 (both part of unit 7 in
`Figure 5 above). Id. at 4:61–64. “The empty motor and battery housing unit
`carriage 17 preferably rests on top of gear casing 12 such that gears 9, 10
`and 11 are securely held between empty motor and battery housing unit
`carriage 17 and top of gear casing 12.” Id. at 4:28–32.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00233
`Patent 7,373,795 B2
`
`
`Figure 3 of the ’795 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 3 of the ’795 Patent
`(fully exploded view of deadbolt activation apparatus).
`Id. at 1:50–51. Figure 3 illustrates several components of motor and battery
`housing unit 7. Knob gear 10 receives one end of splined stem 4, such that
`rotation of knob gear 10 rotates stem 4. Id. at 3:23–35, 3:47–61, 7:58–64
`(Figs. 6A–6B). Motor 15 is powered by batteries in battery bank 8 to rotate
`knob gear 10 and stem 4. Id. at 3:18–22, 4:17–28, 5:12–17, 5:60–6:4.
`Deadbolt 27 is extended and retracted either manually by turning a knob and
`the associated knob gear 10, or electronically with motor 15, via stem 4. Id.
`at 3:23–35, 3:47–61, 5:4–11, 6:4–17.
`Specifically, the end of splined stem 4 opposite to the end received in
`knob gear 10 interacts with a “tailpiece” component of standard internal
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00233
`Patent 7,373,795 B2
`
`deadbolt apparatus 28, wherein rotation of stem 4 extends or retracts
`deadbolt 27. Id. at 4:43–45, 5:4–11, 7:67–8:3, 8:64–9:13. The ’795 patent
`indicates it is beneficial for unit 7 to work with different kinds of standard
`apparatuses 28, which have different tailpiece structures. Id. at 7:12–19,
`7:29–37, 7:67–8:3. Figure 6C of the ’795 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 6C of the ’795 Patent
`(perspective view of splined stem 4,
`showing three alternative face formations 34, 34ʹ, 34ʹʹ).
`Id. at 7:29–37. Figure 6C illustrates that “the user has the option of pulling
`out the splined stem 4 from its attachment to the manual turn knob 2 and
`rotate it such that either the front [or rear] face can be utilized.” Id. at
`7:29–32. The two faces of splined stem 4 may have different formations 34,
`34ʹ, or 34ʹʹ, so unit 7 “can be used with [a] plurality of standard deadbolt
`locks including ones found in most standard configurations.” Id. at 7:32–37.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00233
`Patent 7,373,795 B2
`
`
`The Claims at Issue During Trial
`D.
`We instituted trial as to claims 11–17 of the ’795 patent. Inst. Dec. 2,
`37. These claims include one independent claim, claim 11, which is
`reproduced here with our emphases added:
`11. A method of moving a deadbolt comprising the steps of:
`determining the cross-sectional shape of a tailpiece member
`of a pre-existing deadbolt system;
`attaching a deadbolt activating system to said pre-existing
`deadbolt system with internal mechanisms and a deadbolt,
`wherein attaching further comprises selecting the end of
`a reversible elongated member which matches
`the
`determined cross-sectional shape of said tailpiece member
`of said pre-existing deadbolt system and attaching said
`matching components;
`sending a signal via a transmitter;
`electronically activating an electronic input card housed in
`the deadbolt activating system via reception of the signal;
`signaling a motor with the electronic card via electronic and
`mechanical communication;
`activating a gear, via the motor, housed in the deadbolt
`activating system to rotate;
`housing said reversible elongated member, in mechanical
`communication with the gear, in the deadbolt activating
`system, whereby the rotation of the gear causes the rotation
`of the reversible elongated member which is releasably and
`directly attached to said tailpiece member of internal
`mechanisms of said pre-existing deadbolt system causing
`the deadbolt to extend; and
`providing a tracking system comprising a sensor and a
`sensor recognition point;
`tracking said sensor recognition point, said sensor
`recognition point configured to indicate a specific position
`of said pre-existing deadbolt lock;
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00233
`Patent 7,373,795 B2
`
`
`indicating if said recognition point has been detected by said
`sensor; transmitting said indication to a sound emitting
`module; and
`emitting a sound from said sound emitting module to
`indicate when the deadbolt is in the locked position and/or
`in the unlocked position, wherein said locked and/or
`unlocked position is based on said indication.
`Id. at 14:3–40 (emphases added).
`
`Tried Grounds of Unpatentability
`E.
`We instituted a trial to consider the following two challenges to
`claims 11–17 of the ’795 patent, as presented in the Petition. See Pet. 7–8.
`
`Claim(s)
`Challenged 35 U.S.C. § References
`11–15, 17
`103(a)
`Padiak1 and Anderson2
`
`103(a)
`
`Padiak, Anderson, and
`Admitted Prior Art3 and/or
`2000 International Building Code4
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`1 Ex. 1004, U.S. Patent No. 6,282,931 B1, iss. Sept. 4, 2001.
`2 Ex. 1005, U.S. Patent No. 6,318,218 B1, iss. Nov. 20, 2001.
`3 Petitioner cites the ’795 patent disclosure at column 2, lines 34–36, as
`admitted prior art. See Pet. 56.
`4 Ex. 1023, Int’l Code Council, Inc., Int’l Building Code (2000).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00233
`Patent 7,373,795 B2
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`Claim Construction
`A.
`In this proceeding, we interpret claims of the ’795 patent using the
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the ’795 patent Specification.
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018)5; Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding use of broadest reasonable
`construction standard); Patent Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`“reversible elongated member” (Claim 11)
`1.
`Petitioner contends the term “reversible elongated member” in
`claim 11 “refers to an elongated member having a different shaped opening
`on each end to accept the different cross-sectional shapes of different
`tailpieces.” Pet. 20; id. at 20–22 (discussion in support). Patent Owner
`contends in opposition that the term “means ‘a member longer than it is
`[wide, and] that can be reversed.’” PO Resp. 12; id. at 11–19 (discussion in
`support). However, the parties agree that construction of this term is not
`necessary to resolve the issues presented in this inter partes review.
`Pet. 20–21, 42 n.3; PO Resp. 11; Pet. Reply 16; Sur-reply 5.
`This claim construction issue has been raised and decided in
`Petitioner’s favor in the District Court Litigation. See Ex. 2018 (claim
`construction order). The District Court’s claim construction decision led to
`
`
`5 A recent amendment to this rule does not apply here, because the Petition
`was filed before November 13, 2018. 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 (Oct. 11, 2018).
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00233
`Patent 7,373,795 B2
`
`a stipulated judgment of non-infringement in Petitioner’s favor. See District
`Court Litigation, ECF No. 161 (entered Jan. 7, 2020). Patent Owner has
`appealed that judgment to the Federal Circuit. See id. at ECF No. 163 (filed
`Jan. 28, 2020).
`We conclude that we need not reach an opinion on this disputed issue
`to resolve the controversy presented in this inter partes review. See
`Inst. Dec. 8–9 (also not reaching this issue at the institution stage). In
`particular, the combination of Padiak and Anderson, as set forth in
`Petitioner’s case for obviousness (discussed below in Section III.B.5), would
`lead to an adaptor member that (a) has a differently shaped opening on each
`end to accept different cross-sectional shapes of different tailpieces, and
`(b) is longer than it is wide and can be reversed. In other words, Petitioner’s
`proposed combination would embody the method recited in claim 11,
`regardless of which of the two proposed constructions of “reversible
`elongated member” is applied. Therefore, we do not comment on the merits
`of this claim construction dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan
`Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`(per curiam) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (claim terms need to be construed “only to the
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).
`
`2.
`
`“housing said reversible elongated member . . . in the deadbolt
`activating system” (Claim 11)
`Claim 11 recites “housing said reversible elongated member, in
`mechanical communication with the gear, in the deadbolt activating system.”
`Ex. 1001, 14:22–24.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00233
`Patent 7,373,795 B2
`
`
`In the Institution Decision, we construed this limitation “to require
`housing the reversible elongated member in the deadbolt activating system,
`and not to require (although it permits) housing the member in the gear.”
`Inst. Dec. 11; id. at 9–11 (discussion in support). This construction has not
`been challenged during trial. See PO Resp. 19–24; Pet. Reply 3–10. We,
`therefore, apply it here in this Decision.
`However, Patent Owner correctly notes that the Institution Decision
`“did not explicitly address what is required for [the elongated member] to be
`‘housed in’ the deadbolt activating system,” and Patent Owner accordingly
`provides two claim construction positions concerning the meaning of the
`term “housing . . . in” in claim 11. PO Resp. 20; id. at 1–2, 19–24. We
`consider each in turn.
`
`a)
`
`Relative Positioning of the Elongated Member and
`the Deadbolt Activating System
`Patent Owner contends an elongated member is housed in a deadbolt
`activating system, as required by claim 11, when a portion of the elongated
`member is “positioned in” or “enclosed in” the system. PO Resp. 20, 23–24;
`id. at 21 (presenting a hypothetical in which a prisoner is “housed in” a jail
`cell, “even though the prisoner may be able to extend one arm through the
`[cell] bars”); Tr. 16:3–17:3, 27:3–19. In support, Patent Owner cites
`dictionary definitions of the word “in” as meaning “inside.” PO Resp. 20
`(citing Ex. 2012, 9–11; Ex. 2013, 8–11). Patent Owner contends this
`construction is supported by the ’795 patent Specification, which indicates
`splined stem 4 is positioned inside the deadbolt activating system. Id.
`at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 3, 4:43–45, 7:68–8:3, 9:2–7, 9:23–27).
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00233
`Patent 7,373,795 B2
`
`
`Some statements in the Patent Owner Response suggest Patent
`Owner’s position might be that an elongated member is housed in a deadbolt
`activating system only if the entire member is positioned or enclosed inside
`the system. See, e.g., PO Resp. 5, 7, 22, 23–24, 29–30. However, during the
`oral hearing, it became clear that Patent Owner’s position is that only a
`portion of the elongated member needs to be positioned or enclosed inside of
`the deadbolt activating system, to meet the “housing . . . in” requirement of
`claim 11. See Tr. 16:3–17:3, 27:3–19.
`Petitioner agrees with Patent Owner that, in claim 11, “[t]he housing
`need not fully ‘enclose’ the reversible elongated member.” Pet. Reply 4
`(emphasis added); id. at 7 (“The ’795 patent also uses the term ‘housing’ to
`refer to open structures that do not fully enclose the housed objects.”
`(emphasis added)); Tr. 16:3–17:3.
`We concur with the parties in the foregoing regards. Accordingly, we
`construe the limitation in claim 11 reciting “housing said reversible
`elongated member . . . in the deadbolt activating system” to require that
`a portion of the elongated member is positioned or enclosed inside of the
`deadbolt activating system.
`This construction is consistent with the ’795 patent Specification. It is
`undisputed that splined stem 4 in the Specification corresponds to the
`elongated member of claim 11. As described in the Specification, splined
`stem 4 passes through an opening in template unit 13 such that only a
`portion of splined stem 4 is positioned or enclosed inside of the deadbolt
`activating system. In particular, one end of splined stem 4 is received in
`knob gear 10, inside of motor and battery housing unit 7. Ex. 1001,
`Figs. 1B, 2–3, 3:23–35, 5:4–11, 6:9–12; see also id. at Figs. 6A–6C, 7:58–64
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00233
`Patent 7,373,795 B2
`
`(showing and describing how the splines of splined stem 4 interact with
`engagement face 35 of knob 2, so rotation of knob 2 drives rotation of
`splined stem 4). The opposite end of splined stem 4 extends outside of the
`deadbolt activating system, and into a door, to be attached to the tailpiece of
`standard internal deadbolt apparatus 28 in the door. Id. at Fig. 5, 4:41–45,
`5:4–11, 6:9–17, 7:67–8:3, 8:64–9:13.
`Thus, we determine claim 11 requires that a portion of the elongated
`member is positioned or enclosed inside of the deadbolt activating system.
`
`b) Whether the Elongated Member May be Releasably Attached to
`the Deadbolt Activating System
`Patent Owner contends an elongated member is housed in a deadbolt
`activating system only when the member “cannot be withdrawn without
`opening the housing” of the system. PO Resp. 20, 23. Stated another way,
`the “member is not merely releasably attached to” the system. Id. at 23–24
`(emphasis added).
`Addressing the claim language, Patent Owner cites dictionary
`definitions of the word “housing” as indicating that the elongated member
`must be “constrained in its movement, specifically its egress, from within
`the” deadbolt activating system. Id. at 20–21 (citing Ex. 2012, 6–8;
`Ex. 2013, 6–7); id. at 21 (presenting a hypothetical in which a guard is not
`“housed in” a jail cell, “because the guard’s egress from the cell is not
`constrained”). Patent Owner contends claim 11, in requiring the elongated
`member to be “releasably” attached to the deadbolt system’s tailpiece
`(Ex. 1001, 14:24–28), establishes that “the concept of housing one element
`in another element is different from releasably attaching one element to
`another.” Id. at 23 (emphasis added).
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00233
`Patent 7,373,795 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner contends the ’795 patent Specification supports Patent
`Owner’s construction, by indicating an elongated member (i.e., splined
`stem 4) is positioned within the deadbolt activating system so that its
`“egress . . . from the deadbolt activating system is constrained,” and splined
`stem 4 “cannot be removed from the system without opening the system.”
`Id. at 21–22 (emphases added) (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 3, 4:43–45, 7:68–8:3,
`9:2–7, 9:23–27). In Patent Owner’s view, this “constraint is apparent” in
`Figure 3 of the ’795 patent, which illustrates splined stem 4 as having “a
`splined section with an inner diameter larger than the diameter of the
`opening of the template 13 . . . .” Id. at 22.
`Patent Owner further presents extrinsic evidence, via a Declaration
`signed by Mr. Kilbourne (Ex. 2014), indicating that constraining the
`elongated member in the deadbolt activating system — “as opposed to
`positioning the member outside the system and only releasably attaching the
`member to the system” — provides a functional benefit. Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 13–14;
`PO Resp. 7–8, 10–11, 22. Mr. Kilbourne testifies that door thickness varies
`between different doors, and the length of deadbolt tailpiece members varies
`between different internal deadbolt apparatuses. Ex. 2014 ¶ 13; PO Resp. 7
`(citing Ex. 2011, 6:25–7:25). According to Mr. Kilbourne, constraining the
`elongated member “with respect to both the doorface and the gear driven by
`the motor used to rotate the . . . elongated member (the motor-driven gear)”
`addresses this lack of uniformity. Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 13–14; PO Resp. 7–8.
`Mr. Kilbourne testifies that implementing this constraint maintains the
`elongated member in sufficient engagement with the tailpiece inside of the
`door, and with the motor-driven gear inside of the deadbolt activating
`system. Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 13–14; PO Resp. 7–8.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00233
`Patent 7,373,795 B2
`
`
`Petitioner replies6 that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of ‘housing’
`does not require that the housed object be ‘constrained in its egress’” as
`proposed by Patent Owner. Pet. Reply 3; Ex. 1028 ¶ 4. Petitioner contends
`the plain language of claim 11 supports Petitioner’s position. Pet. Reply 3–4
`(citing Ex. 1001, 14:7–13, 14:22–28). In Petitioner’s view, the different
`terms “housing” and “releasably attaching” in claim 11 are not redundant,
`such that the term “‘housing’ permits, but does not require, a releasable
`attachment.” Pet. Reply 7; Ex. 1028 ¶ 4. Petitioner also asserts Patent
`Owner’s dictionary definitions support Petitioner’s understanding of the
`“housing” limitation. Pet. Reply 7–8 (citing Ex. 2012, 6–8; Ex. 2013, 6–7).
`Petitioner contends “[t]here is not a single passage in the ’795 patent
`[Specification] indicating that the claimed . . . elongated member cannot be
`removed without first opening the housing.” Pet. Reply 4; Ex. 1028
`¶¶ 5–12. Petitioner asserts Patent Owner’s reliance on Figure 3 of the
`’795 patent is misplaced, because Figure 3 “does not explicitly illustrate the
`opening in element 13, nor is the size of the opening relative to the size of
`the splined stem 4 illustrated or otherwise described anywhere in the
`’795 patent.” Pet. Reply 4–5 (citing Ex. 2011, 18:14–16, 21:23–22:8);
`Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 6–7. Petitioner discounts Mr. Kilbourne’s testimony as not
`citing any intrinsic evidence to support the notion that constraining the
`
`
`6 Patent Owner contends portions of this reply, and supporting testimony
`from Dr. Pratt, exceed the proper scope of reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b).
`See Paper 33, 2–3 (citing Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 4–6). We disagree, because these
`reply arguments and testimony are proper responses to arguments raised in
`the Patent Owner Response concerning claim construction of the
`“housing . . . in” limitation of claim 11. See Paper 34, 5–7.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00233
`Patent 7,373,795 B2
`
`elongated member in the deadbolt activating system provides a functional
`benefit. Pet. Reply 4 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 13–14).
`Petitioner further contends Figure 6C illustrates splined stem 4 as
`having a “uniform cross-sectional diameter,” such that stem 4 is “reversible”
`as required by claim 11, thus supporting Petitioner’s construction because
`such a stem would be releasable from (not constrained in) a housing.
`Pet. Reply 6–7 (emphasis by Petitioner) (citing Ex. 1001, 7:29–37);
`Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 8–9. Petitioner also asserts the ’795 patent Specification “uses
`the term ‘housing’ to refer to open structures” such as motor and battery
`housing unit 7 “that do not fully enclose the housed objects.” Pet. Reply 7
`(citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 1B, 3:2–11); Ex. 1028 ¶ 5.
`We begin our consideration of claim 11 with the claim language,
`which recites the “method . . . step[]” of “housing” an elongated member
`“in” a deadbolt activating system. Ex. 1001, 14:3–4, 14:22–24. Patent
`Owner does not specify which of the multitude of proffered dictionary
`definitions of the words “house” and “housing” in Exhibits 2012 and 2013
`supports Patent Owner’s view that the term “housing” in claim 11 requires
`the member to be constrained from exiting an enclosure. PO Resp. 20–21;
`Ex. 2012, 6–8; Ex. 2013, 6–7. The closest definitions we can discern are:
`“housʹing, n. . . . 6. in machinery, a support or framework to hold something
`in position, as a journal box” (Ex. 2012, 8), and “2house . . . vt 1 . . . c: to
`confine within a house <housed with a bad cold> — often used with up
`<housed up all day in these four walls>” (Ex. 2013, 6). Neither of those two
`definitions, however, provides much support for limiting the term “housing”
`in claim 11 to require that the member is constrained from exiting the
`deadbolt activating system. Moreover, we agree with Petitioner’s argument
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00233
`Patent 7,373,795 B2
`
`that the proffered dictionary definitions of the words “house” and “housing”
`in Exhibits 2012 and 2013 contain many other alternatives that support
`Petitioner’s broader claim construction, suggesting the words merely
`connote covering, harboring, sheltering, or containing, without necessarily
`constraining. See Pet. Reply 7–8 (quoting various definitions).
`The additional recitation in claim 11 that the elongated member is
`“releasably . . . attached” to the tailpiece (Ex. 1001, 14:24–28) also does not
`materially aid Patent Owner’s narrow construction, which would equate
`“housing . . . in” to be limited to constraining the member from exiting the
`system. There is no rational relationship between whether one end of the
`elongated member is releasably attached to the tailpiece, and whether the
`opposite end of the elongated member is releasably or non-releasably housed
`in the deadbolt activating system. We agree with Petitioner’s contention that
`Patent Owner’s argument here rests on a false dichotomy, because the term
`“housing” is consistent with both a releasable, and a non-releasable,
`“housing” of the elongated member in the deadbolt activating system. See
`Pet. Reply 7.
`The best support in the ’795 patent Specification for Patent Owner’s
`narrow construction is Figure 3, which appears to illustrate splined stem 4 as
`having a splined section (for receipt in knob gear 10) and an un-splined
`section (to extend through an opening in template unit 13). See Ex. 1001,
`Fig. 3. Further, the splined section appears to have a larger outer diameter
`than the un-splined section. See id. Thus, there appears to be a shoulder
`portion at the interface of the splined and un-splined sections, which might
`prevent the splined section from extending through the opening in template
`unit 13, but permit the un-splined section to extend through the opening,
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00233
`Patent 7,373,795 B2
`
`thereby constraining splined stem 4 from exiting the deadbolt activating
`system. See id.
`We accord little weight to this illustration, however, for at least five
`reasons. First, as Petitioner points out, Figure 3 does not clearly show the
`size of the opening in template unit 13 in relation to the size of splined
`stem 4. See Pet. Reply 4–5; Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 6–7. Patent Owner appears to
`assume that the un-splined section is shown as extending through the
`opening, so that the opening is not independently perceivable. However,
`Patent Owner’s position is not consistent with the “fully exploded view”
`nature of the illustration, in which each part is generally shown separately
`from the other parts. See Ex. 1001, 1:50–51, Fig. 3; Ex. 1028 ¶ 6.
`Second, the written description cited by Patent Owner does not
`support Patent Owner’s interpretation of what is shown in Figure 3. Splined
`stem 4 is not described as having a shoulder structure that constrains stem 4
`from exiting the system, as is somewhat suggested in Figure 3. Ex. 1001,
`4:43–45, 7:67–8:3, 9:2–7, 9:23–27. Instead, the cited written description
`reflects simply that stem 4 extends from template unit 13 to engage the
`tailpiece of internal deadbolt apparatus 28. Id. The disclosure does not
`indicate stem 4 is constrained within the system in any manner. Id.
`Third, the ’795 patent figures are, as a general matter, unreliable as
`evidentiary sources of disclosed structures, in many regards. As one
`example, Figure 2 is described as showing knob gear 10, but it does not
`appear to do so. See Ex. 1001, Figs. 2–4, 3:43–49, 4:6–10. It is, further, not
`clear how the structure of carriage 17 as illustrated in Figure 2 is capable of
`receiving knob gear 10 of turning knob 2. See id. at Figs. 2–4. As another
`example, the configuration of template unit 13 in Figures 2 and 3 is, at best,
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00233
`Patent 7,373,795 B2
`
`imprecise as to the openings extending through the unit. See id. at Figs. 2–3,
`4:43–61, 6:24–51, 7:24–29. As a further example, the inter-relationship
`between gears 9, 10, and 11 is not clearly shown in the ’795 patent Figures.
`See id. at Figs. 2–4, 4:6–40, 5:12–13, 5:57–6:2, 8:55–9:2. We do not intend
`here to suggest that the ’795 patent is infirm under 35 U.S.C. § 112. We
`merely find that, given the multiple instances where the Figures of the
`’795 patent are not clear, the configuration of splined stem 4 as shown in
`Figure 3 does not provide adequate support for Patent Owner’s claim
`construction argument.
`Fourth, Patent Owner’s understanding of what is shown in Figure 3 is
`directly contradicted by what is shown in Figure 6C. Both figures are
`described as illustrating the same splined stem 4, not alternative
`embodiments of different splined stems. Ex. 1001, 5:1–11 (Fig. 3), 7:29–37
`(Fig. 6C). Figure 6C, in contrast to Figure 3, illustrates stem 4 as having
`splines along its entire length, and as having a uniform diameter along its
`entire length. Id. at Fig. 6C. The ’795 patent Specification indicates “[i]t is
`important to note” how the structure shown in Figure 6C provides “the
`option of pulling out the splined stem 4 from its attachment to the manual
`turn knob 2 and rotate it such that either the front face can be utilized having
`a standard slot formation 34 or with a half oval face as seen in 34ʹ or
`cross-slot formation 34ʹʹ.” Id. at 7:29–34 (emphasis added). Thus, instead
`of disclosing a benefit to having stem 4 be constrained from exiting the
`system (as Patent Owner would have it), the ’795 patent Specification
`describes easy removability of splined stem 4 as a functional benefit.
`Fifth, as Petitioner points out, claim 11 requires that the elongated
`member is “reversible.” See Pet. Reply 6; Ex. 1028 ¶ 7. It is not evident
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00233
`Patent 7,373,795 B2
`
`how splined stem 4, if it has a shoulder as suggested by Figure 3, would be
`“reversible,” even under Patent Owner’s construction of the term as meaning
`splined stem 4 “can be reversed.” PO Resp. 12. Splined stem 4 requires a
`splined section to be received in knob gear 10 and engaged with face 35 for
`mutual rotation. See Ex. 1001, Figs. 3 & 6A–6C, 7:58–64. The un-splined
`section of stem 4 as shown in Figure 3, with a smaller diameter than the
`splined section, would not achieve the same functionality if stem 4 were
`reversed in Figure 3. Further, it is not clear how the splined section of
`stem 4, having a larger diameter than the un-splined section, could extend
`out of template unit 13 to interface with a tailpiece, if stem 4 were reversed
`in Figure 3. See id. at Fig. 3, 4:41–45, 5:4–11, 6:9–17, 7:67–8:3, 8:64–9:13.
`Mr. Kilbourne’s testimony in support of Patent Owner’s contention
`that the term “housing” should be limited to constraining the elongated
`member from exiting the deadbolt activating system is not persuasive. The
`intrinsic evidence fails to reflect consideration of the functional benefit
`identified by Mr. Kilbourne as resulting from constraining the elongated
`member from exiting the deadbolt activating system. See Exhibit 2014
`¶¶ 13–14; Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 977–78
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (in claim construction, primacy is given to intrinsic
`evidence consisting of the claim language, specification, and prosecution
`history). Absent such intrinsic evidentiary support, and based on the scant
`disclosure in the ’795 patent tending to support Patent Owner’s position as
`discussed above, we accord Mr. Kilbourne’s testimony little weight in the
`present claim construction. Mr. Kilbourne’s testimony, further, does not
`explain persuasively how constraining the elongated member from exiting
`the system achieves the identified functional benefit of adapting to different
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00233
`Patent 7,373,795 B2
`
`door
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
