Paper No. 19
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NUNA BABY ESSENTIALS, INC. and
`NUNA INTERNATIONAL B.V.,
`Nuna Baby,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`BRITAX CHILD SAFETY, INC.,
`Britax.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: June 2, 2020
`____________
`
`
`
`Before LINDA E. HORNER, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`TRENTON WARD, ESQUIRE
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.
`271 17th street NW
`Suite 1400
`Atlanta GA 30363-6209
`(404) 653-6441
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`CHAD L. THORSON , ESQUIRE
`Burr Forman McNair
`101 South Tryon Street
`Suite 2610
`Charlotte, NC 28280
`(704) 347-6477
`cthorson@burr.com
`
`
`
`N. DEAN POWELL, JR., ESQUIRE
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, L.L.P.
`101 West Fourth Street
`Winston-Salem NC 27101
`(336) 607-7300
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, June 2,
`
`2020, commencing at 1:00 p.m EDT, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`JUDGE DANIELS: Great. Mr. Mahoney are you all set and
`
`ready to go on the record?
`
`MR. MAHONEY: Yes, Your Honor, I am. Thank you.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: All right, great, let's get started. Good
`afternoon everyone. This is our final hearing in IPR2019-00663. The
`patented issue is number 9,187,016. We generally refer to it as the 016
`patent. The case is between petitioner is Nuna Baby Essentials, Inc. and
`patent owner is Britax Child Safety, Inc. Let me -- actually let's get the
`parties appearances first. Who do we have and start off with whoever is
`presenting from Nuna Baby please.
`
`MR. WARD: Yes, Your Honors, may it please the Board, my
`name is Trenton Ward, appearing on behalf of petitioner, Nuna Baby
`Essentials and Nuna International B.V. Let me ask, is my audio okay, I
`think I was having a little packet loss earlier, but how's my audio sound?
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: It sounds just fine, Mr. Ward. And who
`do we have -- are you the only presenter today?
`
`MR. WARD: The only presenter for petitioner, yes, thank you,
`Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: And from Britax?
`
`MR. POWELL: Yes, thank you, Your Honor. This is Dean
`Powell, I'm here on behalf of Patent Owner, Britax Child Safety. I will be
`the only presenter for Britax. Well, I'll ask the same question, audio, is that
`okay on my end?
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Both of your audios and both of your
`audio and video looks great. We can see and hear you just fine. Let me --
`3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`our experience with these are the past few weeks has been that it takes a
`little more time; it's a little bit slower than when we're live so, if you have
`any issues or you need to take a break, let's make sure we get everything in
`and give you all the time that you need just because it's a little bit slower and
`harder to do this, I think, then when we're live. And, it also is helpful if
`everyone, if you're not speaking please, please stay muted then we can, then
`we won't get any background noise.
`
`A few other administrative matters before we begin. So, I am
`Judge Daniels, and also with me is Judge Horner, and from the West Coast
`is Judge Dougal today. I will be keeping the time and I'm sort of doing it the
`old fashioned way with my phone and stopwatch here on my desk, rather
`than, we don't have just the hearing room, so, I know you can't see it. Judge
`Dougal's going to back me up on the hearing time so that we make sure that
`we tell you all when you're nearing the end of your time. Let's see, well, just
`to check my checklist here. We have -- we set forth most of the procedure
`for today's hearing in the trial order. Both sides have an hour of presentation
`time. You may divide that up however you like. If you have -- as you go
`through your demonstratives today, please just make sure you're clear on
`which one you're referring to. We'll ask as well, if we get confused or if we
`lose track, so, just bear in mind it's helpful for us. We have them in front;
`each Judge has them in front of us so we can see them along with the
`working file. So, petitioner has the burden and will go first.
`
`So, Mr. Ward, you will go first. You can reserve when we start
`anytime for rebuttal that you want. Mr. Powell, you'll go second and you
`can present your response. Petitioner will be allowed some time to rebut and
`also, Mr. Powell, you can present a brief sur-rebuttal, if you like, per the
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`updated trial practice guides. So, we'll give you some warning when you're
`reaching the end of your argument time, I will remind both counsel that
`there's no interruption of either party for objections. If there is some
`objection, when it's your turn, you can cover that ground and put that on the
`record. So, with that we're ready to begin and so, Mr. Ward
`
`MR. WARD: Judge Daniels, I have just one quick question. I
`apologize, I just wanted to ask a logistical question before we got started. I
`got the benefit of your very clear video of you, but I don't see on my screen
`Judge Horner or Judge Dougal. Will there video be provided as well or --?
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Alex, any thoughts, I see them?
`
`MR. TSEHAY: You probably need to change your layout on
`the top right corner. When you hover over it there should be some options.
`
`MR. WARD: Yeah, I tried the various options and so far I'm
`only seeing Judge Daniels, but perhaps that's because he's been the only
`active speaker thus far.
`
`MR. TSEHAY: Let's see here, give me just a moment. Mr.
`Powell, are you able to see the videos of the other judges as well?
`
`MR. POWELL: I am not in my grid view actually, I do not see
`Judge Daniels; I can only see Judge Daniels when I do the speaker view.
`
`MR. TSEHAY: Yeah, same for me.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: So, our -- my experience has been
`sometimes we can't see the other participants depending on what you have
`up on your screen unless they speak. We can do a little test here. Judge
`Dougal, could you just introduce yourself and see if you come up on their
`screen?
`
`
`JUDGE DOUGAL: Sure. This is Judge Dougal. Are you guys
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`seeing me now?
`
`MR. WARD: Yes, now I can.
`
`JUDGE HORNER: This is Judge Horner, this is Judge Horner,
`can you see me?
`
`MR. WARD: Not, unfortunately, Judge Horner, you're up
`(phonetic) video doesn't come up.
`
`MR. TSEHAY: Judge Horner, if you speak for a few more
`seconds it'll pick up the active speaker.
`
`JUDGE HORNER: Okay, all right. This is Judge Horner,
`testing. Can you see me now? Now?
`
`MR. WARD: Oh, now I can see you, there you are Judge
`Horner, yes.
`
`JUDGE HORNER: Great.
`
`MR. WARD: Very clear, wow, that's a quite the high definition
`feed there.
`JUDGE HORNER: Great.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Okay, I think that's what happened in the
`
`past. Sometimes I can only see whoever else is talking to, so, good that we
`have that and the critical part is, if anyone falls off, just when you dial back
`in, please let us know as quickly as possible so we don't lose -- we've had a
`couple of people drop off, including the court reporter. If we lose someone,
`we want to take care of that and make sure we traverse any ground we might
`have missed by chance, but I think it's going to go -- we have a great hearing
`team who’ve done a great job and I think it'll go just fine. So, back to where
`we were and so I can stop talking, we'll let the parties present their case.
`
`Mr. Ward, do you have any time, how much time would you
`6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`like to reserve?
`
`MR. WARD: Yes, Judge Daniels, I'd like to reserve 30 minutes
`for rebuttal, if I may.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Great. Let me set my timer here, then you
`can start when you're ready.
`
`MR. WARD: Thank you, Your Honors. Patent Owner's
`arguments are the premise upon this panel adopting its overly narrow claim
`construction. And as Your Honors so commonly see in these IPR matters,
`Patent Owner attempts to read limitations into its claims, in an effort to
`avoid the prior art relied upon by the petitioner. Patent Owner's arguments
`are simply not commensurate with the scope of the claims. As a quick road
`map, Your Honor, I'd like to first address the Patent Owner's proposal, with
`respect to client construction, then I'd like to address each of the three
`grounds that were instituted in this case, and then conclude by addressing the
`secondary considerations.
`
`Starting with claim construction and I want to direct Your
`Honors' attention to my slide two. And on slide two you'll see that I
`reproduced the beginning portion of claim one to the 016 patent. In the
`frame of our discussion today, I want to read to you this portion of claim
`one, which states, a child seat configured to be secured to a seat of a car; a
`child seat comprising a seat base defining a seat portion and a backrest
`portion. From the back rest portion, the front side and the rear side where
`the seat portion defines the top side and the bottom side. Your Honors, I've
`placed at the bottom of slide two a quote from Patent Owner response which
`provides Patent Owner's proposed construction. And they tell you this, they
`tell you that the plain language of the claim makes clear that the seat base
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`includes a seat portion and a backrest portion that are portions of a seat
`shape to directly receive an occupant of the child's seat when the child seat is
`in use.
`Your Honors, if there's one thing that's clear from reviewing the
`
`language of the claim is that they do not include what I've emphasized in
`bold at the bottom of slide two, the narrow limitations the patent owner's
`attempting to read into the claim. What Your Honors are going to hear again
`and again today, patent owner's arguments are contentioned upon the Board
`adopting and reading these limitations into the claims of the 016 patent.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Mr. Ward --
`
`MR. WARD: Slide three. Yes.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: -- I have a question. Can you hear me?
`
`MR. WARD: Yes, I can.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Do you -- so would you concede -- I
`understand that you're arguing they're reading this, technically, this section
`that you have bolded here on through portions of the seat shape and directly
`received. Would you concede that the seat portion and back portion, I mean,
`they have to receive an occupant somehow of the child seat. Is that -- would
`you concede at least that part of their claim construction?
`
`MR. WARD: Judge Daniels, what I would say is that the child
`seat has to receive the occupant and as Your Honors correctly noted in your
`decision on institutions, there's a distinction here with respect to the
`recitation of a child's seat and the seat base. If the slide two there, just in
`looking at the top of claim one. The preamble states a child seat configured
`to be secured to the seat of a car, the child seat comprising a seat base. So,
`as Your Honors identified, those are two distinct recitations; the child seat
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`and the seat base. And in fact, the seat base is one of perhaps many
`components of the child seat and the child seat petitioner would concede is
`intended to receive an occupant. But there is no recitation nor support in the
`specification for Patent Owner's argument that the seat base and
`furthermore, the seat portion and the back rest portion of which seat base are
`portions of a seat shape to directly receive an occupant of the child seat
`when the child seat is in use. And specifically, Judge Daniels, I'm just
`turning to my slide three, first, the term seat shape never appears in the
`claims. So, they’re asking you to read in this term to find the seat shape that
`doesn't appear anywhere in the claims. In fact, it only appears at one point
`in the specifications. Secondly, the claims don't recite directly receive an
`occupant of the child seat. In fact, none of the independent claims contain a
`recitation about receiving an occupant of the child seat, certainly not directly
`receiving an occupant of a child seat. And third, the claims do not identify
`that the alleged receiving is to happen when the child seat is in use. So, the
`claims do not support --
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: (Crosstalk) doesn't claim 13 talk about
`different, I think from claim one, doesn't it talk about --
`
`MR. WARD: Yes.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: So, your argument, I think, is that in claim
`13, which is dependent that, that shows -- I'm jumping ahead probably a
`little bit, but that would show that claim one should be broader then what's
`recited in claim 13.
`
`MR. WARD: Yes, Judge Daniels. Petitioner would agree with
`you on that and it's -- I sent to you slide five -- if you turn to my slide five
`you'll see this claim 13. I reproduced it for Your Honors. And specifically,
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`what claim 13 does is it expressly recites the padding is to be added to the
`back rest portion and the seat portion. So, claim 13's the only claim in the
`016 patent that has an expressed limitation regarding receiving an occupant.
`And it says this; child seat according to claim one wherein the seat base
`defines padding positioned on and attached to the backrest portion and the
`seat portion so as to receive an occupant therein. So, from this particular
`claim, claim 13, narrowing independent claim one and identifying that in
`order to receive an occupant on the backrest portion and the seat portion,
`that padding is added. And Your Honor, this is actually supported as well
`by the specification. If you turn back to my slide four, you'll see the
`statements and examples in the specifications as to how the seat portion and
`the backrest portions are to be further configured. That middle part
`(phonetic) that I've given you there on slide four from the specifications
`states: the seat portion 18 and backseat portion 16 may define the seat shape
`that is configured to receive an occupant such as a child. So, what that
`specification is telling us is that the seat portion and the backrest portion can
`be configured to receive, i.e., further configured to receive an occupant.
`And in just a few sentences after that quote from the specifications appears
`the next quote on slide four, in which specification tells us that in some
`embodiments, a child seat may comprise padding, cushions or other features
`to provide comfort and/or additional safety for an occupant.
`
`With reference to figure one in some embodiments, the child
`seat 10 may comprise of padding 19 attached to the backseat portion of the
`seat base 12. As noted above, the padding 19 may provide additional
`support and comfort for a seat occupant. So, what the specification is telling
`us here is that, it's giving us an example of how the seat portion and the
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`backseat portion are to be configured to receive an occupant. And in this
`example, it is to add padding to make it more comfortable for the occupant
`of the seat and that's exactly what we see in the only claim that recites
`receiving an occupant, claim 13, that this -- a padding is to be added to
`further configure the seat portion and the backrest portion.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Mr. Ward let me ask -- let me test you a
`little bit on this, this specification element. So, you know, why we read
`Phillips, I think that both parties, I think, is cite Phillips and I think
`legitimately in Phillips, there's some nuggets in there that you both have
`relied on. But I think understanding Phillips as a whole, if Phillips is
`interesting because it say, hey, first you look at the claim, but then you also
`have to understand the claim and the context of the spec. And in this spec, I
`don't see any other embodiments other than the one, basically a single part as
`opposed to a two-part; a single part child seat that is the child seat is the base
`and has the components of a seat portion and a backrest portion and that's it.
`I never see a two-part seat; I never see any allusions to that. So, how is one
`skilled in the art when they read that spec, how are they just not seen as just
`this one piece?
`
`MR. WARD: Your Honor, what I would point you to is the
`lack of the other recitation of the specification of an embodiment in which
`the proposed claim construction is provided, i.e., that you have a seat base
`with a seat portion and a backrest portion that directly receive an occupant of
`a child seat in use. In fact, what's shown in the specifications, what's
`described in the specifications and later set forth in claim 13, is that these
`components have to be further configured. The soft goods have to be added
`as the term of art in this industry. Soft goods are added, the padding
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`cushioning and other components, they are added to the seat portion and the
`backseat portion for the child seat to receive the occupant. There is a
`disclosure of an embodiment in which the seat portion and the backrest
`portion alone directly receive an occupant of the seat. And this identifies
`that as set forth in the claims, the seat base is one of many components of the
`child seat.
`JUDGE DANIELS: I feel like though, I understand what you're
`
`saying about the padding because it's in claim 13 and then it has that
`functional language about receiving the occupant. But I also feel like that's a
`little bit of a red herring. I feel like, I mean, padding -- if you have to have
`padding to support -- I feel like that's just a structural limitation. It's really
`minor as opposed to the functionality -- it seems to me that the functionality
`of the receiving of an occupant would be included in claim one as well; even
`though it's stated. So, I guess what I'm saying is, doesn't -- isn't claim 13
`just limited by this issue of -- this little element of padding as opposed to
`adding in the whole functional distinction?
`
`MR. WARD: Judge Daniels, what the claims set forth in the
`016 patent is a broad claim for a child seat in which the recitations are
`directed to just some of the components of that child seat. Intentionally so,
`Your Honor, it is a broad claim in which the limitations are directed to a
`portion of a components. Those that are skilled, already know that there's
`many different ways in which a child seat can be configured. There are
`some integrated seats, there are some multi-component seats, some in which
`there are soft goods separate and apart from the hard goods, some of the soft
`goods being integral to the hard goods, et cetera. And what the claims in the
`016 patent are directed to is limitations with respect to just one portion
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`allowing the capability that the child seat could be further configured in
`many ways. But the limitations in the claim are to the seat base and the
`backrest portion and the seat portion of that seat base.
`
`As Your Honors noted in your decision on institution, turning
`to my slide seven, claim one does not, however, include any such additional
`shape and functional limitations besides a seat base defining a seat portion
`and a backrest portion. We decline at this point in the proceeding to read
`additional limitations that Britax' argument appears to pull from the
`specifications and the claims. And Your Honors, I would suggest that that
`notice fails to provide any argument or evidence after an institution that
`require the Board to now read the additional limitations into the claims.
`Judge, if any further questions on claim construction, I'd like to move on to
`ground one.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Not from me.
`
`JUDGE DOUGAL: No questions.
`
`MR. WARD: Thank you, Your Honor. Turning now then to
`slide 10 of my demonstratives. In ground one, petitioner proposes that
`certain claims are obvious in view of the Yamazaki reference combined with
`the Washimi reference. And specifically, what petitioner alleges is that
`Yamazaki meets all the limitations of claim one, except that Yamazaki does
`not expressly disclose the tensioning mechanism interacting with both the
`lap and shoulder sections of the seatbelt. Washimi, however, provides such
`a teaching of the lap and shoulder sections overlapping within its tensioning
`mechanism and petitioner's established there would have been a person of
`ordinary in the skill of the art would have been motivated to combine the
`teaching from Washimi and to Yamazaki. Patent Owner's argument against
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`ground one, Your Honors, is dependent upon its narrow claim construction.
`Patent Owner argues that Yamazaki does not disclose the seat base and
`backrest portion specifically of the statement on slide 10. They argue that
`the base 10, the back plate 10a of the Yamazaki do not correlate the return
`seat base and backrest portion as recited in the claims of the 016 patent.
`
`Turning to slide 11. As stated in Your Honors’ institution
`decision, Yamazaki base 10 has a back plate 10a and a bottom plate 10b
`elements which appear structurally -- which appear to structurally
`correspond to the limitations of the seat portion and a backrest portion as
`recited in claim one. And I've given you the figure from Yamazaki in my
`slide 12, Your Honors, if you turn to slide 12. You'll see figure six there
`from Yamazaki which kind of gives you a graphical illustration of these
`components that we're talking about. Yamazaki teaches a seat 10 -- it's
`labeled in red at the bottom left there base 10, seat base 10 that includes a
`bottom plate annotated in blue; bottom plate 10b, which corresponds to the
`claim C portion. And at that plate 10a at the top left annotated in red, which
`corresponds to the backrest portion. Turning to slide 12, Patent Owner
`argues that as shown in figure six, the tensioning mechanism for Yamazaki
`is insufficient. They argue that it's insufficient because the tensioning
`mechanism of the Yamazaki is -- here's what they say, it's exposed on the
`base of the child seat not the seat body. Once again, Your Honors, asking
`this panel to read in a limitation that doesn't exist in the claims. They say
`that the Yamazaki tensioning mechanism is exposed on the base portion of
`the child seat not the seat body. The term, seat body, does not appear
`anywhere in the claims nor does it appear in the 016 patent. So, once again,
`their arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`tensioning mechanism is recited in the claims as attached to the backrest
`portion and the tensioning mechanism shown in Yamazaki is attached to the
`backrest portion; it's attached to back plate 10a. If you flip back to my slide
`12, you'll see the tensioning mechanism which we identify as lever 12 from
`figure six of Yamazaki. You can see that it is attached at a shaft 13; it's not
`labeled there, but it's attached at shaft 13 to back plate 10a; the backrest
`portion of Yamazaki.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: So, overall, you've got the disparity here is
`mainly is in our claims construction or in the claims construction that we
`eventually take on. Now, I'm not -- I can't speak for the other judges, but I'm
`fully willing to revisit my claims construction, which is why we ask the
`claims -- the issues -- the questions before. What if we didn't -- you talked
`in your reply about direct and indirect. So, if we understand your claims
`construction, this seat base that shown in Yamazaki, which is a, I believe a
`two-piece child seat, this base would indirectly -- if we use your claim
`construction, this base would indirectly -- both the backrest portion and the
`seat portion, would indirectly support an occupant. Am I right there?
`
`MR. WARD: Yes, that's one of the embodiments that's
`disclosed in Yamazaki as an embodiment in which a seat body is added to
`Yamazaki's seat base 10. Specifically, Yamazaki says base 10 to be set up
`passenger seat seven of a vehicle and a seat body to be set on base 10. So,
`this particular embodiment is shown in figure six as embodiment in which a
`seat body would be added to base 10. As we're talking about this base, this
`one of many components of the overall child seat, and there are a number of
`different seat bodies having various configurations of soft goods and other
`things that could be combined with this seat base to arrive at the overall
`15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`child seat. But the important thing to keep in mind is, if you look at claim
`one and you compare it to what's shown in figure six here in Yamazaki, it
`has all of the claim values. The claim required a seat base with a backrest
`portion and a seat portion and a tensioning mechanism attached to the
`backrest portion. So, there are no limitations in claim one with respect to
`this alleged seat body or characteristics or components of the seat body. The
`recitations are with respect to the seat base. And, in fact, Yamazaki, teaches
`this seat base and teaches a tensioning mechanism attached to the backrest
`portion of this seat base.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Does Yamazaki teach anything -- the
`concern I have is that it really sometimes -- when you compare to the claim,
`the concern I have is that is goes to the specifications, I think, of both of
`these patents which is, the 016 patent, it really seems to be drawn to a single
`element as; whereas, here Yamazaki is only drawn to a -- it only describes a
`two piece. I feel like even if you referenced -- I feel like there's a reference
`interpretation problem here with Yamakazi in your argument, perhaps. In
`the -- you're trying to shoe-horn this two-part into what's really a single
`piece and that you're not looking at the specification originally in the 016
`patent and sort of ignoring that. Is there a -- is there anything else in
`Yamazaki that talks about a, that this would just be a seat itself?
`
`MR. WARD: Yamazaki does disclose -- makes known that
`those of ordinary skill in the art would understand that child seats can come
`in different configurations and that one of those configurations is an
`integrated seat. So, in the column one of Yamazaki, it states that the seat
`body two is formed integrally with base three; four is supported on base
`three so it can be turnable and tiltable relative to the base. So, there are
`16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`statements in Yamazaki alluding to the fact that those of ordinary skill in of
`the art understand there are variations in which these child seats can be
`provided. Patent Owner’s argument that -- argues well, that just a different
`embodiment and it's not related to the embodiment in figure six, we simply
`identify that as an acknowledgement that those of ordinary skill in the art
`understand that you can't have car seats designed in different ways. There
`are having now spent quite some time in reviewing the prior art in the child
`seat there, I can tell you that there are hundreds of different configurations.
`Shells in which the seat cracked open and a completely integrated seat,
`multiple bases that are -- multiple bodies that are added to a base. There are
`many, many different ways. If you walk down the aisle at Walmart at car
`seats, you can see all the different ways in which these car seats are
`provided. But specifically, what it really comes down to for this case is the
`claims do not require a one component car seat. And if you turn to my slide
`13, you'll see this come to a head in the statement that is given to us by the
`Patent Owner. Their argument in the sur reply, it's the quote in the middle
`of that slide. Where they say that this is in contrast to the child seat
`described in claims in the 016 patent, which is a one component car seat, and
`then it includes just the seat body that attaches directly to the vehicle seat
`and directly receives the child. Your Honors, none of that language, no
`language about a one component car seat, no language about a seat body; the
`term seat body doesn't even exist in the 016 patent. So, what they're asking
`you to do is, they're asking you to read on limitations into this claim that do
`not exist with respect to the child seat that has been claimed. What their
`claim is a child seat comprising of seat base and the limitations are with
`respect to that seat base. There are no recitations about what the seat body
`17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`does or whether or not the seat body directly receives or indirectly receives;
`it's a broad claim directed to just the seat base. And these arguments about a
`one component child seat versus a two component child seat may have
`merit, if in fact, that's what the claims dictate, but they do not. And
`importantly, Your Honors, even though they're asking you to read in this
`laundry list of limitations in the claim, they didn't avail themselves to the
`benefit to actively amend the claims to include these recitations regarding a
`one component car seat and there's no reason that in an appropriate
`application of Phillips that this panel should determine that the claims
`require, as they say they do, a one component car seat that includes just the
`seat body. None of those recitations are at any of the challenged claims.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: What about the concern -- you just
`mentioned Phillips again. One of my concerns and it doesn't get raised
`much in front of us, but, Phillips; now that we use Phillips, don't we have to
`account for the fact that we're supposed to read these claims, and give them -
`- especially in a crowded field like you were just talking about. Shouldn't
`we read these claims towards giving them validity? Doesn't that go towards,
`a little bit towards, at least a little bit towards Patent Owner's argument and
`giving them a little bit narrow readings so that we read them on specification
`and, as Phillips said, sometimes we want to look and see, make sure that
`these are read towards the validity rather than invalidity?
`
`MR. WARD: What I would say, Your Honors, is that --
`
`JUDGE DOUGAL: Before you start, just to let you know you
`have about four and a half minutes left.
`
`MR. WARD: Okay. What I would say, Your Honors, is that a
`correct application of Phillips here requires that the claims be construed in
`18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`view of the specification. And in viewing the specification, there's no single
`embodiment that supports the constru