Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 20
` Entered: September 2, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NUNA BABY ESSENTIALS, INC. and
`NUNA INTERNATIONAL B.V.,
`Nuna Baby,
`
`v.
`
`BRITAX CHILD SAFETY, INC.,
`Britax.
`
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`____________
`
`Before LINDA E. HORNER, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 20
` Entered: September 2, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NUNA BABY ESSENTIALS, INC. and
`NUNA INTERNATIONAL B.V.,
`Nuna Baby,
`
`v.
`
`BRITAX CHILD SAFETY, INC.,
`Britax.
`
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`____________
`
`Before LINDA E. HORNER, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Nuna Baby filed a Petition to institute an inter partes review of claims
`1–19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,187,016 B2 (“the ’016 patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”).
`Britax filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We
`instituted an inter partes review of all the challenged claims in the ’016
`patent on all of the grounds asserted by Nuna Baby. Paper 8 (“Dec. Inst.”).
`Britax filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 10, “PO Resp.”) and Nuna
`Baby filed a Reply (Paper 12, “Reply”). Britax subsequently filed a Sur-
`Reply. Paper 14. Based on the parties’ requests we conducted an oral
`hearing on June 2, 2020. Papers 15, 16. A copy of the transcript from the
`oral hearing is entered in the record of this proceeding. Paper 19 (“Tr.”).
`Having reviewed the arguments of the parties and the supporting
`evidence on the complete record before us, we find that Nuna Baby has
`demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that each of challenged
`claims 1, 2, 12, 14–16, 18, and 19 of the ’016 patent is unpatentable. Nuna
`Baby has not demonstrated that claims 3–11, 13, and 17 are unpatentable.
`B. Related Proceedings
`Neither party indicates that the ’016 patent is involved in any other
`judicial or administrative matter that would affect, or be affected by, a
`decision in this proceeding. Pet. 92; Paper 6, 3.
`C. The ’016 Patent
`The ’016 patent (Ex. 1001), titled “Child Seat with Belt Tensioning
`Mechanism for Improved Installation,” describes “a child safety seat
`including a tensioning mechanism for applying tension to a seat belt to more
`fully secure the child safety seat to a car seat.” Ex. 1001, 1:18–20. Figure 1
`of the ’016 patent is reproduced below.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of the ’016 patent “shows a front view of a child safety seat.” Id. at
`4:30. Child safety seat 10 includes seat base 12 having seat portion 18 and
`backrest portion 16, where the seat portion 18 and backrest portion 16 “may
`define a seat shape that is configured to receive an occupant, such as a
`child.” Id. at 6:17–22. This embodiment of seat 10 further includes padding
`19, arm rests 22, 23 and harness 50 to secure the child in the child safety
`seat. Id. at 6:23–46. The ’016 patent explains that “padding 19 may be
`configured to at least partially cover a tensioning mechanism 30.” Id. at
`6:48–49. Tensioning mechanism 30 is shown in annotated Figure 6 of the
`’016 patent, reproduced below.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 6 of the ’016 patent, above, as annotated by the Board, “shows a front
`view of the child seat” and tensioning mechanism 30 as well as vehicle seat
`belt 25. Id. at 5:6, 12:17–21. Vehicle seat belt 25 includes lap section 27
`shown highlighted in green, and shoulder section 29 shown highlighted in
`yellow. The ’016 patent explains that “the tensioning mechanism 30 is
`configured to receive a portion of the lap section 27 of the belt 25 and a
`portion of the shoulder section 29 of the belt . . . along a belt path, such as
`within the belt guide channel 79.” Id. at 12:36–40.
`A safety concern that child safety seat 10 and tensioning mechanism
`30 is intended to address is slack or looseness, i.e., not enough tension in a
`vehicle seat belt as the seat belt secures the child safety seat to a vehicle seat.
`See id. at 1:39–44 (The ’016 patent explains that “maintaining a proper
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`amount of tension in the seat belt can also be difficult. Indeed, an improper
`amount of tension is undesirable and may negatively affect the safety of the
`occupant secured within the child seat.”). To address this safety concern,
`tensioning mechanism 30 is designed to apply tension to both the lap and
`shoulder sections 27, 29 of seat belt 25 and eliminate any slack or looseness.
`See id. at 12:40–44, 12:58‒13:3. The ’016 patent states that “the tensioning
`mechanism is configured to apply tension to the portion of the lap section
`and the portion of the shoulder section of the belt to secure the child seat to
`the car seat in a tensioned configuration.” Id. at 1:66–2:3. Annotated Figure
`7 of the ’016 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`Annotated Figure 7, above, highlights both lap and shoulder sections 27, 29
`of the seat belt received in tensioning mechanism 30. Id. at 12:63–66 (The
`’016 patent explains that “the tensioning mechanism 30 may be rotated (e.g.,
`in the direction of arrow C) to apply tension to the portion of the lap section
`[27] and the portion of the shoulder section 29 of the belt 25 engaged with
`the tensioning mechanism 30.”).
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims 1–19, claims 1, 12, 15, and 19 are
`independent. Each of claims 2–11, 13, and 14, depends from claim 1, and
`claims 16–18 depend from claim 15. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject
`matter and is reproduced below with emphasis added to particular
`limitations of importance:
`1. A child seat configured to be secured to a seat of a car, the
`child seat comprising:
`a seat base defining a seat portion and a backrest portion,
`wherein the backrest portion defines a front side and a rear side,
`wherein the seat portion defines a top side and a bottom side,
`wherein the seat base is configured to be positioned on the seat
`of the car such that the rear side of the backrest portion is
`positioned adjacent a backrest portion of the seat of the car and
`the bottom side of the seat portion is positioned adjacent a seat
`portion of the seat of the car, wherein the seat base is further
`configured to receive a belt of the seat of the car such that the
`belt is positioned around at least one of the front side of the
`backrest portion or the top side of the seat portion and the belt is
`engaged with a buckle of the seat of the car to secure the child
`seat to the seat of the car in an untensioned configuration,
`wherein the belt defines a lap section and a shoulder section; and
`a tensioning mechanism attached to the backrest portion of
`the seat base, wherein the tensioning mechanism is rotatable
`between a first position substantially adjacent to at least the
`backrest portion of the seat base and a second position disposed
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`
`
`therefrom, wherein, in the second position, the tensioning
`mechanism is configured to receive a portion of the lap section
`of the belt and a portion of the shoulder section of the belt,
`wherein, in the first position, the tensioning mechanism is
`configured to apply tension to the portion of the lap section and
`the portion of the shoulder section of the belt to secure the child
`seat to the seat of the car in a tensioned configuration, wherein,
`when in the first position, the tensioning mechanism defines a
`generally vertical orientation, and wherein, when in the second
`position,
`the
`tensioning mechanism defines a generally
`horizontal orientation.
`Ex. 1001, 14:31‒64 (emphasis added).
`E. The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`Nuna Baby contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable on
`the following specific grounds. 1
`References
`Yamazaki2 and Washimi3
`Yamazaki, Washimi, and Parker4
`Yamazaki, Washimi, and Hutchinson5
`
`Basis Claims Challenged
`§ 103 1–5, 12, 14–19
`§ 103 6, 13
`§ 103 7–11
`
`F. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill in the
`art include: “(1) educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems
`encountered in the art: (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity
`with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology, and
`
`1 Nuna Baby supports its challenge with a Declaration of Andrew Bowman,
`B.S.M.E., M.S. (Ex. 1003) and Britax relies on the Declaration of Richard
`Kent, B.S.M.E., M.S., Ph.D. (Ex. 2010). See infra.
`2 Ex. 1005, U.S. Patent No. 6,508,510 B2 (Jan. 21, 2003).
`3 Ex. 1012, certified translation of Japanese Laid-open Patent Application,
`Publication No. Hei 5-185869 (July 27, 1993).
`4 Ex. 1007, U.S. Patent No. 5,061,012 (Oct. 29, 1991).
`5 Ex. 1008, U.S. Patent Appl’n. Pub. No. 2009/0001791 A1 (Jan. 1, 2009).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`(6) educational level of workers active in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v.
`Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–697 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic
`Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed.
`Cir. 1983)). Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or
`more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id.
`Moreover, these factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to
`determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd,
`Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`In determining a level of ordinary skill, we also may look to the prior
`art, which may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261
`F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Additionally, the Supreme Court informs
`us that “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity,
`not an automaton.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
`Nuna Baby argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art has “a
`Bachelor’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering or a related subject and two
`or more years of experience working with child safety seats . . . [l]ess work
`experience may be compensated for by a higher level of education, such as a
`Master’s Degree, and vice versa.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 23). Britax’s
`definition is mostly similar, “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering
`or other similar subjects and either a Master’s degree in mechanical
`engineering, or two or more years of experience in the field of child safety
`seats.” PO Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 28). Britax explains that “for
`individuals with different educational backgrounds, a person could still be of
`ordinary skill in the art provided that person’s additional experience
`compensates for any differences in that person’s education.” Id. (citing Ex.
`2010 ¶ 29).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`We do not find a significant difference in these definitions proposed
`by the parties for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Both definitions allow
`for an undergraduate or higher professional degree and alternatively a
`reasonable period of time and work experience in the field of child safety
`seats. For purposes of this decision and on the record currently before us,
`we adopt Britax’s proposed definition. We emphasize that adopting Nuna
`Baby’s definition would not alter the outcome of this Decision.
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A. Legal Standard
`We interpret a claim “using the same claim construction standard that
`would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C.
`282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). 6 Under this standard, we construe the claim
`“in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history
`pertaining to the patent.” Id. Furthermore, we expressly construe the claims
`only to the extent necessary to resolve the dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir.
`2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to
`
`
`6 The Office has changed the claim construction standard in AIA
`proceedings to replace the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”)
`standard with the same claim construction standard used in a civil action in
`federal district court. Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for
`Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018). The change applies to petitions
`filed on or after November 13, 2018. Id. The present Petition was filed on
`February 28, 2019, so we construe the claims in accordance with the federal
`district court standard, now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc.
`v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`B. Untensioned configuration
`Nuna Baby proposes that the term, “untensioned configuration,” as
`recited in claim 1, “must be construed to mean ‘a not fully tensioned
`configuration.’” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 29). Britax contends that this
`term should simply be given its plain and ordinary meaning which “is clear
`not only to a person of ordinary skill in the art but also to a lay person.” PO
`Resp. 21–2 (citing 2010 ¶ 47). This term is not reasonably in dispute, nor
`does any part of our Decision turn on a specific construction of this term.
`We find the claim language clear on its face and therefore agree with Britax
`that “untensioned configuration” should be given its plain and ordinary
`meaning—that is, not tensioned, as understood by a person of ordinary skill
`in the art.
`C. Seat base and backrest portion
`The ’016 patent describes that “[t]he child seat 10 comprises a seat
`base 12 defining a seat portion 18 and a backrest portion 16.” Ex. 1001,
`6:18–20. Britax argues that “seat base” should be construed to be “a
`component of a child safety seat that defines a seat shape to directly receive
`an occupant of the child seat when the child seat is in use.” PO Resp. 26.
`Also, Britax argues that “backrest portion” should be construed as “a
`component of the child seat configured for supporting an occupant’s back
`when the child seat is in use.” Id. We address the terms “seat base” and
`“backrest portion” in turn, below.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`1. seat base
`In support of its proposed construction for the term “seat base,” Britax
`points to description in the ’016 patent that explains for instance that “[t]he
`seat portion 18 and backrest portion 16 may define a seat shape that is
`configured to receive an occupant, such as a child.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex.
`1001, 6:17–22). Britax argues that the ’016 patent explains that “tensioning
`mechanism 30 may be pivotably attached to the backrest portion 16 of the
`seat base 12.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 6:63–67). Britax also argues that “child
`seat 10 may comprise a padding 19 that is attached to the backrest portion 16
`of the seat base 12.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:44–56). Based on this
`disclosure in the ’016 patent, Britax’s declarant, Dr. Kent, testifies that “the
`seat base 12 is clearly configured for receiving an occupant during use in a
`moving vehicle and that the tensioning mechanism is operably connected to
`the seat base 12.” Id. (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 53). 7
`Nuna Baby argues that the plain language of the claims does not
`support Britax’s construction. Reply 2. Nuna Baby argues specifically that
`“the term ‘seat shape’ does not appear in the claims, the claims do not recite
`limitations requiring such a “seat shape” to ‘directly receive an occupant of
`the child seat,’ and the claims do not identify that this receiving is to happen
`‘when the child seat is in use.’” Id. Nuna Baby argues that reading the
`claims in light of the specification, “the backrest portion and seat portion do
`
`
`7 Britax argues that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art, particularly in
`view of the specification and prosecution history, would have had this
`understanding of the meaning of the terms.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 49).
`Neither the Patent Owner Response nor Dr. Kent, however, identify any
`aspect of the prosecution history to support this testimony. See Ex. 2010
`¶¶ 50‒56 (making no mention of the prosecution history of the ’016 patent).
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`not directly receive an occupant of the child seat, but are further configured
`with padding and cushions to receive an occupant.” Id. at 3 (citing Ex.
`1001, 6:44–46).
`The specification of the ’016 patent is clear that child seat 10
`“comprises a seat base 12 defining a seat portion 18 and a backrest portion
`16.” Ex. 1001, 6:19–20. Then, the specification explains that “[t]he seat
`portion 18 and backrest portion 16 may define a seat shape that is
`configured to receive an occupant, such as a child.” Id. at 6:20–22.
`Nowhere does the specification state that seat base 12 defines any particular
`shape. Indeed, the claims do not recite the term, “seat shape.” For intrinsic
`evidence, we have mainly the specification’s description that it is the seat
`portion 18 and backrest portion 16 which “may define a seat shape.” Id. at
`6:21. We are not persuaded to import a limitation into the claims that runs
`contrary to the express description in the specification which reads “[t]he
`seat portion 18 and backrest portion 16 may define a seat shape that is
`configured to receive an occupant, such as a child.” Id. at 6:20–22.
`In addition, each of the independent claims recites the structure of “a
`seat base defining a seat portion and a backrest portion” and functionally
`recites interaction with “a belt,” and “a seat of a car.” Ex. 1001, 14:33–42,
`16:14–23, 59–63, 18:6–11. Britax does not point to any functional or
`structural explanation or recitation in any of the independent claims that
`expresses where or how an occupant is arranged directly, or otherwise,
`relative to the “seat base,” “seat portion,” or “backrest portion.” We also
`find no disclosure in the specification, nor does Britax point us to any, which
`persuasively explains that the child seat claimed in the ’016 patent must be a
`unitary design or that the seat cannot be a two-component seat. Rather, the
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`specification states that “[i]ndeed, these inventions may be embodied in
`many different forms and should not be construed as limited to the
`embodiments set forth herein.” Id. at 5:41–43.
`Even if the claims required a “seat shape,” which they do not, we also
`do not find, nor does Britax persuasively point to sufficient, support in the
`specification that a “seat shape” must “directly receive an occupant of the
`child seat.” Moreover, neither Britax nor Dr. Kent explain satisfactorily the
`meaning of the term “directly,” which is also not present in the claims. PO
`Resp. 25, see Ex. 2010 ¶ 54 (Dr. Kent testifying that “the ’016 patent
`describes the ‘seat base’ 12 as a structure in which an individual, such as a
`child, can direct[l]y sit while the child seat is in use.”).
`We are not persuaded to read limitations into the claims that have
`little or no support in the specification and where the meaning of such
`limitations creates ambiguity as to the scope and meaning of the claims. See
`In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“Although
`operational characteristics of an apparatus may be apparent from the
`specification, we will not read such characteristics into the claims when they
`cannot be fairly connected to the structure recited in the claims.”). The
`independent claims 1, 12, 15, and 19 are clear on their face, requiring “a seat
`base defining a seat portion and a backrest portion.” Ex. 1001, 14:33. This
`claim recitation is understandable and consistent with the specification and a
`plain reading of the written description. See id. at 6:18–20 (“The child seat
`10 comprises a seat base 12 defining a seat portion 18 and a backrest portion
`16.”).
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`2. backrest portion
`Britax argues that the term “backrest portion” would be understood by
`a person of ordinary skill in the art as referring to a component of the child
`seat configured for supporting an occupant’s back when the child seat is in
`use.” PO Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 56). Nuna Baby basically agrees with
`this premise. See Reply 4 (“Petitioner agrees with PO’s suggestion that the
`plain and ordinary meaning of “backrest portion” includes supporting an
`occupant’s back when the child seat is in use to the extent that support can
`be direct or indirect support.”). However, Nuna Baby does not agree that
`“backrest portion” should be construed as part of the seat base, to “directly
`receive an occupant of the child seat when the child seat is in use,” as
`Britax’s claim construction may presuppose. See PO Resp. 22 (“Britax
`arguing that “the plain language of the claim makes clear that the seat base
`includes a seat portion and a backrest portion that are portions of a seat
`shape to directly receive an occupant of the child seat when the child seat is
`in use.”).
`For the same reasons we do not construe “seat base” in the manner
`Britax proposes as “a component of a child safety seat that defines a seat
`shape to directly receive an occupant of the child seat when the child seat is
`in use,” we also do not read the “directly receive” limitation into the
`meaning of “backrest portion.” To the extent “backrest portion” needs to be
`construed, a plain reading of the written description reveals that together
`with the seat portion, the backrest portion “may define a seat shape that is
`configured to receive an occupant, such as a child.” Ex. 1001, 6:21–22.
`Also, understanding that the logical meaning of “backrest portion” relates to
`an occupant’s back, this is generally consistent with Britax’s proposal.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`However, the written description does not describe that the backrest portion
`provides “direct” support. Therefore, we determine that the “backrest
`portion” is “a component of the child seat configured for supporting an
`occupant’s back when the child seat is in use,” although the support need not
`be “direct.”
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`We turn now to Nuna Baby’s asserted grounds of unpatentability and
`Britax’s arguments in its Patent Owner Response to determine whether Nuna
`Baby has met its burden under 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`A. The Legal Constructs of Obviousness
`Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007).
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when available, evidence
`such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, and failure of
`others. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); see KSR, 550
`U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
`any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
`controls.”). The Court in Graham explained that these factual inquiries
`promote “uniformity and definiteness,” for “[w]hat is obvious is not a
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`question upon which there is likely to be uniformity of thought in every
`given factual context.” Graham, 383 U.S. at 18.
`The Supreme Court made clear that we apply “an expansive and
`flexible approach” to the question of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415.
`Whether a patent claiming the combination of prior art elements would have
`been obvious is determined by whether the improvement is more than the
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
`Id. at 417. To reach this conclusion, however, it is not enough to show
`merely that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate
`limitation in a challenged claim. Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655
`F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Rather, obviousness additionally requires
`that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention “would have
`selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal course of
`research and development to yield the claimed invention.” Id.
`A claimed invention may be obvious even when the prior art does not
`teach each claim limitation, so long as the record contains some reason why
`one of skill in the art would modify the prior art to obtain the claimed
`invention. See Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1307 (Fed.
`Cir. 2006). And, as a factfinder, we also must be aware “of the distortion
`caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex
`post reasoning.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. This does not deny us, however,
`“recourse to common sense” or to that which the prior art teaches. Id.
`Nuna Baby must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the
`evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). Against this general
`background, we consider the references, other evidence, and arguments on
`which the parties rely.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`B. Claims 1–5, 12, and 14–19— Alleged obviousness over Yamazaki
`and Washimi
`Nuna Baby asserts that claims 1–5, 12, and 14–19 would have been
`obvious over Yamazaki and Washimi. Pet. 7–47. Nuna Baby has
`established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–5, 12, and 14–
`19 would have been obvious for the reasons explained below.
`3. Yamazaki
`Yamazaki is titled “Child Car Seat” and describes a child car seat base
`10 that is secured to vehicle seat 7, to which a seat body is then attached. 8
`Ex. 1005, 1:50–54, 3:20–22. Figure 1 of Yamazaki, below, is an example of
`base 10 secured to vehicle seat 7.
`
`
`
`
`8 The seat body is not shown in Figures depicting Yamazaki’s invention.
`Yamazaki shows, in Figure 9, a prior art “seat body 2” set on base 3. Ex.
`1005, 1:11–43. Referring to Figure 9, Yamazaki states that “a known child
`car seat 1 has a seat body 2 and a base 3 supporting the seat body 2 thereon.”
`Id. at 11–12.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`Yamazaki’s Figure 1, above, illustrates base 10 with seat belt tightening
`mechanism 11 engaged with seat belt 4 to thereby secure the base to the
`vehicle seat 7. Id. at 3:20–22, 30–31, 37–40. Yamazaki describes that base
`10 has back plate 10a, bottom plate 10b, and side plates 10c and 10c
`extended between the sides of back plate 10a and bottom plate 10b. Id. at
`3:22‒25.
`A rotary disc style seat belt fastening mechanism 20 is used to secure
`a shoulder portion 4a of seat belt 4 to the base 10. Id. at 4:5–12. This
`fastening mechanism fixes the length of seat belt 4 to be used. Id. at 4:59–
`63. A lap portion 4b of seat belt 4 can be positioned in recesses 10d in side
`plates 10c of the base 10. Id. at 3:25–26, 4:39–40. A lever 12 of the seat
`belt tightening mechanism 11 is used to engage the seat belt lap portion 4b
`and to deflect it downward, thereby tightening the seat belt and securing the
`base in place. Id. at 4:37–45. Once the base 10 is secured to the vehicle
`seat, a seat body can be attached to the base. Id. at 1:50–62.
`Yamazaki teaches that securing the seat belt to the rotary disc style
`seat belt fastening mechanism 20 and then tightening the seat belt with the
`seat belt tightening mechanism 11 eliminates the need for “the simultaneous
`performance of two actions for keeping the length of the seat belt fixed and
`tightening the seat belt,” and the child car seat can be more easily fixed in
`place. Id. at 4:62–66.
`4. Washimi 9
`Washimi is titled “Child car seat” and describes a car seat that “makes
`it possible to install a child seat to a vehicle seat by a simple operation,
`
`
`9 We refer in our Decision to the certified English translation of Washimi,
`Ex. 1012.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`eliminates the possibility of loss of a part necessary for installation, and
`further prevents webbing from becoming loose due to a reclining action.”
`Ex. 1012 ¶ 46. Figure 1 of Washimi, below, as annotated by the Board, is an
`exploded view of a safety seat and a seat belt. Id. at [Brief description of the
`drawings].
`
`
`Washimi Figure 1, above, shows an exploded view of the child safety seat,
`with base 12 in solid lines and seat main body 20 in phantom lines,
`including lid 70, highlighted in yellow, that rotates about shaft part 72. Id.
`Annotated Figure 2, below left, is a perspective view of the child safety seat
`set on a vehicle seat 10, highlighting lid 70. Id. at [Brief description of the
`drawings]. Annotated Figure 5, below right, is a cross-section of the child
`seat taken along line 5-5 of Figure 2 also showing lid 70 in yellow. Id.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2, above left, shows seat main body 20 connected to base 12 with
`both the lap and shoulder portions of seat belt 60, i.e., webbing 66 and 68,
`engaged underneath lid 70. Id. ¶¶ 16–18, 22‒24. Figure 5, above right,
`shows lid 70 securing seat belt 60 in engagement recess 92. Id. ¶ 27.
`Lid 70 is positioned across straddling part 56, between seat part 22
`and backrest part 24. Id. ¶¶ 21, 24, Figs. 2, 3. To secure the child seat, lid
`70 is rotated about shaft part 72 until stopper piece 74 engages stopper 76 in
`backrest part 24. Id. ¶¶ 24, 35. Engagement protrusions 78 on lid 70 force
`lap webbing 66 and shoulder webbing 68 of seat belt 60 into engagement
`recesses 92 to lock the child seat in place with respect to vehicle rear seat 10.
`Id. ¶ 34, Fig. 5.
`
`5. Claim 1
`Nuna Baby’s Arguments
`Nuna Baby argues that Yamazaki teaches, inter alia, a child safety
`seat “configured to be secured to a seat of a car” as called for in the
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
`preamble of claim 1. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1005, Abst., 3:19–22). Nuna Baby
`argues that Yamazaki’s child seat has a seat base 10 including a “seat
`portion,” a “backrest portion,” and is “configured to be positioned on the
`seat of the car,” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 13–16 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:22–
`25, Figs. 1, 6; Ex. 1003 ¶ 47). According to Nuna Baby, Yamazaki teaches
`that seat base 10 engages with a car seat belt “such that the belt is positioned
`around at least one of the front side of the backrest portion or the top side of
`the seat portion,” as claim 1 recites. Id. at 16‒17 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:25–26,
`4:37–49, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49‒50). Nuna Baby also argues that Yamazaki
`discloses “a tensioning mechanism attached to the backrest portion of the
`seat base . . . rotatable between a first position substantially adjacent to at
`least the backrest portion of the seat base and a second position disposed
`therefrom.” Id. at 21‒22 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:38–45, Fig. 6; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 58;
`1003 ¶¶ 57–59).
`Nuna Baby contends that Yamazaki meets all the limitations of claim
`1 “except that Yamazaki does not expressly disclose the tensioning
`mechanism interacting with both the lap and shoulder sections of the belt.”
`Pet. 10. To address this deficiency, Nuna Baby argues that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art “would have looked to improve Yamazaki’s
`tightening mechanism 11 with Washimi because it teaches a tensioning
`mechanism that interacts with both a lap section and a shoulder section of
`the belt.” Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 41). Nuna Baby argues further that
`“[i]n Washimi, the two sections of webbing are stacked on top of each other
`when the belt interacts with the tensioning mechanism, as shown below in
`Figures 2 and 6.” Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 22–23). Nuna Baby provides
`the following annotated Figures 2 and 6 from Washimi illustrating the
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00663
`Patent 9,187,016 B2
`
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
