Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No.
`9,909,302 Atty. Docket No. 62354/00000
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`)
`Inventor: Anderson et al.
`)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,909,302
`Issued Mar. 6, 2018
`)
`)
`Based on U.S. App. No: 15/612,721
`)
`Filed: June 2, 2017
`)
`For
` FLOOD VENT HAVING A
`)
`PANEL
`)
`)
`
`IPR2019-01061
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT
`NO. 9,909,302 UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, the undersigned, on
`
`behalf of and acting in a representative capacity for petitioner, William Sykes
`
`(“Petitioner” and real party in interest), hereby petitions for inter partes review of
`
`claims 1-18 of U.S. Pat. No. 9,909,302 (“the '302 Patent”), issued to Smart Vent
`
`Products, Inc. (“Patent Owner”).
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,909,302 Docket No. 62354/00000
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... iv 
`Statutes ....................................................................................................................... iv 
`Other Authorities ........................................................................................................ iv 
`Regulations ................................................................................................................. iv 
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) .......................... 3
`A.
`REAL PARTY IN INTEREST ................................................................ 3 
`B. 
`RELATED MATTERS ............................................................................ 3 
`C. 
`NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL .................................. 4 
`D. 
`SERVICE INFORMATION .................................................................... 5 
`PAYMENT OF FEES ....................................................................................... 5
`III. 
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ....................................... 5 
`A.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING ................................................................ 5
`B.
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE CHALLENGE ......................................... 6 
`1. 
`The specific art and statutory ground(s) on which the challenge is
`based .............................................................................................. 6 
`How the challenged claims are to be construed ............................ 7 
`How the construed claims are unpatentable under the statutory
`grounds identified in paragraph (b)(2) of 37 ............................. 7 
`C.F.R. § 42.104 .............................................................................. 7 
`Supporting Evidence Relied upon to Support the Challenge ........ 8 
`4. 
`BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 8 
`V. 
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE REFERENCES AS PRIOR ART ..................... 8 
`VI. 
`VII.  DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY ..................................................................................... 9
` A. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1, 3, 7, 11, 12, and 18 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`AS BEING ANTICIPATED BY SHOOK AND FURTHER IN LIGHT OF
`MALITSKY ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`1. SHOOK IS PRIOR ART AS TO THE '302 PATENT ................. 9
`ii
`
`2. 
`3. 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,909,302 Docket No. 62354/00000
`
`
`2. CLAIM ELEMENTS IN '302, SHOOK,
`
` AND MALITSKY .................................................................... 10
`
` a. Claim 1 Elements ................................................................ 10
`
` b. Claim 3 Elements ................................................................ 12
`
` c. Claim 7 Elements ................................................................ 12
`
` d. Claim 11 Elements .............................................................. 14
`
` e. Claim 12 Elements .............................................................. 15
`
` f. Claim 18 Elements .............................................................. 17
`
`3. '302 IS ANTICIPATED BY SHOOK IN LIGHT OF
`
`
` WALITSKY ............................................................................. 18
`B.
`INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1 OF THE PATENT RECITES
`LIMITATIONS THAT WERE DISCLOSED IN SHOOK .................. 19
` C. THE CLAIMS OF THE '302 PATENT RECITE LIMITATIONS THAT
`WERE DISCLAIMED IN THE SHOOK APPLICATION AND
`SMART VENT CANNOT RECAPTURE THE DISCLAIMED
`MATTER IN THE '302 PATENT ......................................................... 25
`VIII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 27 
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................. 28 
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ........................................................................ 28
`EXHIBIT LIST ......................................................................................................... 29 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,909,302 Docket No. 62354/00000
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases
`Abbvie, Inc. v Mathilda and Terence Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust
`764 F. 3d 1366, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................ 23, 24
`ContentGuard Holdings Inc. v. ZTE Corporation et al.,
`Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-0206-CMH-TCB ........................................................... 3
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd.
`535 U.S. 722, 727 (2002) ................................................................................25
`Jonsson v. Stanley Works
`903 F.2d 812, 818 (Fed. Cir. 1990) .................................................................25
`Laitram Corp. v. Morehouse Indus., Inc.,
`143 F.3d 1456, 1460 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1998). ......................................................25
`Pfizer, Inc. vTeva Parmaceuticals USA, Inc.
`518 F.3d 1353, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................................................... 24, 25
`SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Group, Inc.,
`Case CBM2012-00001 (PTAB June 11, 2013) ...................................................... 7
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................. 3, 7, 10, 13, 14, 32
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ..................................................... 3, 7, 11, 41, 44, 46, 49, 52, 53, 55
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ......................................................................................................1, 6
`35 U.S.C. § 316 .......................................................................................................... 6
`Other Authorities
`MPEP § 2144.03 ...................................................................................................... 12
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 ....................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 .................................................................................................1, 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .................................................................................................5, 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 4
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,909,302 Docket No. 62354/00000
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This Petition demonstrates that in the ‘302 Patent and in the prior art cited
`
`herein, the panel as described and claimed in the ‘302 Patent achieves the same
`
`function as the prior art, as well as having the same structure as the prior art.
`
`The claimed invention of the ‘302 patent is a “flood vent” with a panel
`
`that is “coupled” with the frame using connectors and the connectors are
`
`configured to “uncouple[d] the panel from the frame when 0.5-5.0 pounds per
`
`square inch (PSI) of pressure is applied to a portion of the panel” by either a
`
`fluid or an object carried by fluid.
`
`Flood vents such as those at issue in this matter are generally designed to
`
`be inserted into openings in building foundations. They are intended to close off
`
`openings in the structure yet allow the free flow of water through the foundation
`
`during flooding events to avoid damage to the structure from the pressure of
`
`large amounts of fast-moving water and the debris carried by the water. As
`
`described below, the art in the field teaches numerous designs for flood vents
`
`that all share the feature of vents or panels with an ability to open partially or
`
`fully to allow the flow of water, but also include those designed to: completely
`
`seal openings; allow the free flow of air without allowing debris and animals to
`
`pass through; hinged vents or panels, panels designed to float up and out of the
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,909,302 Docket No. 62354/00000
`
`
`vent; and various combinations thereof. As also shown below, all flood vent
`
`designs in the art have in common some means of keeping vents and/or panels in
`
`place until water pressure from a flooding event forces the vents or panel to open
`
`(generally through hinged means) or a flood vent panel to be released
`
`completely from the flood vent leaving an unobstructed opening for flood water
`
`to pass through. The vent mechanism of the ‘302 patent teaches
`
`
`
`“a flood gate comprising a passageway through an opening in a structure.
`
`The flood vent further includes a panel configured to be coupled to the
`
`frame in the fluid passageway so as to at least partially block the fluid
`
`passageway through the opening in the structure. The flood vent also
`
`includes one or more connectors configured to couple the panel to the
`
`frame. The one or more connectors are further configured to uncouple the
`
`panel from the frame when 0.5-5.0 pounds per square inch (PSI) of
`
`pressure is applied to a portion of the panel by one or more of a fluid or an
`
`object carried by the fluid, so as to reduce an amount of blockage of the
`
`fluid passageway provided by the panel.”
`
`
`
`As described below in detail, ‘302 is the same, functionally and
`
`structurally, as the invention taught in Shook, and further as taught in Malitsky.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,909,302 Docket No. 62354/00000
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner hereby asserts that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`Petitioner will prevail that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable
`
`and respectfully requests institution of an inter partes review of the ‘302 Patent
`
`for judgment against Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 18 as unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102 and/or § 103.
`
`
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`A. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
`William Sykes, an individual is the real party-in-interest for
`
`Petitioner.
`
`B. RELATED MATTERS
`Petitioner and the Patent Owner Smart Vent Products, Inc., are currently
`
`involved in litigation in the United States District Court for the District of New
`
`Jersey, Case No. 1:13cv05691. The matter does not involve any of the patents
`
`at issue in this Petition for Review.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,909,302 Docket No. 62354/00000
`
`
`C. NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a), Petitioner provides
`
`the following designation of counsel.
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`Duncan G. Byers, Reg. No. 50,707
`dbyers@pwhd.com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`Patten, Wornom, Hatten &
`Diamonstein
`12350 Jefferson Ave.
`Suite 300
`Newport News, VA 23602
`Telephone: (757) 223.4474
`Fax: (757) 249.1627
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Scott L. Reichle, Reg. No. 63,350
`sreichle@pwhd.com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`Patten, Wornom, Hatten &
`Diamonstein
`12350 Jefferson Ave.
`Suite 300
`Newport News, VA 23602
`Telephone: (757) 223.4536
`Fax: (757) 249.1627
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,909,302 Docket No. 62354/00000
`
`
`D.
`SERVICE INFORMATION
`Service information for lead and back-up counsel is provided in the
`
`designation of lead and back-up counsel, above. Service of any documents via
`
`hand-delivery may be made at the postal mailing address of the respective lead
`
`or back-up counsel designated above.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`The undersigned is providing payment of fees in the amount of $15,500.00
`
`via check no.10237, sent via overnight express simultaneously with the filing of
`
`this Petition.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`As set forth below and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104, each requirement for
`
`inter partes review of the ‘302 Patent is satisfied.
`
`A. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner hereby certifies that the
`
`‘302 Patent is available for inter partes review and that the Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review challenging the claims
`
`of the ‘302 Patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,909,302 Docket No. 62354/00000
`
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE CHALLENGE
`
`B.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), the precise relief requested by
`
`Petitioner is that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) review and
`
`invalidate claims 1-18 of the ‘302 Patent.
`
`1.
`
`The specific art and statutory ground(s) on which the
`challenge is based
`The PTAB applies U.S. law in conducting an inter partes review. 35
`U.S.C.
`
`§§ 311-319. Unpatentability is proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316. Inter partes review of the ‘302 Patent is requested in view of
`
`
`
`
`
`the following references:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,308,396 to Shook (“Shook” or “’396) (Ex. 1002);
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0174501 to Malitsky et al. (“Malitsky” or
`
`“’501”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`Each one of the publications listed above is prior art to the ‘302 Patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b), and/or (e).
`
`Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 18 of the ‘302 Patent are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over ‘302 in view of Malitsky.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,909,302 Docket No. 62354/00000
`
`
`2. How the challenged claims are to be construed
`A claim subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also SAP America, Inc. v. Versata
`
`Development Group, Inc., Case CBM2012-00001, Final Written Decision,
`
`p. 23 (P.T.A.B. June 11, 2013). Petitioner’s construction of claim terms is
`
`not binding upon Petitioner in any subsequent litigation related to the ‘302
`
`Patent. Petitioner submits, for the purposes of this inter partes review only,
`
`that the claim terms take on the customary and ordinary meaning that the
`
`terms would have to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the
`
`specification of the ‘302 Patent.
`
`3. How the construed claims are unpatentable under the
`statutory grounds identified in paragraph (b)(2) of 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104
`An explanation of how the Claims of the ‘302 Patent are unpatentable under
`
`the statutory grounds identified above, including the identification of where each
`
`element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications, is
`
`provided in Section VII, below.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
` U.S. Pat. No. 9,909,302 Docket No. 62354/00000
`
`4.
`Supporting Evidence Relied upon to Support the Challenge
`The exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied upon to support the
`
`challenge and the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including
`
`identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge, are
`
`provided below. An Exhibit List with the exhibit number and a brief description
`
`of each exhibit is filed herewith.
`
`V. BACKGROUND
`
`The ‘302 Patent is directed to a flood vent having a panel, the panel
`
`secured in place with connectors that allow the panel to uncouple from the
`
`frame of the flood vent once a certain pressure is applied to the panel by a
`
`fluid. (Ex. 1001, abstract).
`
`VI.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE REFERENCES AS PRIOR ART
`The earliest potential priority date of the ‘302 Patent is the filing date of
`
`parent U.S. Patent Application No. 14/965,403, December 10, 2015 (now U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,719,249, Ex. 1004). Assuming that the ‘302 Patent is entitled to the
`
`filing date of December 10, 2015 as alleged in the ‘302 Patent, the following
`
`references are cited as prior art in this Petition:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,308,396 to Shook (“Shook” or “’396) (Ex. 1002);
`
` U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0174501 to Malitsky et al. (“Malitsky” or
`“’501”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
` U.S. Pat. No. 9,909,302 Docket No. 62354/00000
`
`
`
`Each one of the publications listed above is prior art to the 302 Patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(a), (b), and/or (e).
`
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE GROUNDS
`FOR UNPATENTABILITY
`A. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 18 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE AS BEING ANTICIPATED BY SHOOK AND
`FURTHER IN LIGHT OF MALITSKY
`
`SHOOK IS PRIOR ART AS TO THE ‘302 PATENT
`
`1.
`
`Smart Vent currently co-owns, by assignment (Ex. 1005) both the ‘302
`
`patent and Shook. Co-ownership of prior art provides some exceptions to the use
`
`of prior art to reject patent claims:
`
`(2) DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND
`
`PATENTS.— A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed
`
`invention under subsection (a)(2) if—
`
`(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or
`
`indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;
`
`(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter
`
`was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed
`
`by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject
`
`matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint
`
`inventor; or
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
` U.S. Pat. No. 9,909,302 Docket No. 62354/00000
`
`
`(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not
`
`later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were
`
`owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to
`
`the same person.
`
`MPEP § 706.02(b)(2) (emphasis added).
`
`Here, the Shook patent was assigned to Smart Vent on August 10, 2017. Ex.
`
`1005, 0002. The ‘302 patent was filed on June 2, 2017. The filing date therefore
`
`precedes the date that Smart Vent obtained ownership of the Shook patent and
`
`Shook is available as prior art against the ‘302 patent.
`
`2.
`
`CLAIM ELEMENTS IN ‘302, SHOOK, AND
`MALITSKY
`
`a. Claim1 Elements
`
`1.
`
`A flood vent, comprising: A frame configured to
`
`form a fluid passageway. Shook teaches “a flood vent for a structure comprising a
`
`shuttered duct. . . . formed in a housing” Ex. 1002, 6:5, FIG. 1.
`
`2.
`
`A panel configured to be coupled to the frame in
`
`the fluid passageway so as to at least partially block the fluid passageway through
`
`the opening in the structure. Shook teaches the duct “pivotally fixed to a shutter
`
`positioned within said duct, wherein said shutter swings between a closed position
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
` U.S. Pat. No. 9,909,302 Docket No. 62354/00000
`
`
`
`and an open position in response to a floodwater pressure differential in said duct.
`
`Ex. 1002, 6:12-16, FIG. 1.
`
`3.
`
`One or more first connectors configured to couple
`
`the panel to the frame, the one or more first connectors further configured to
`
`uncouple the panel from the frame when a first predetermined amount of pressure
`
`is applied to a portion of the panel on a first side of the panel by one or more of a
`
`fluid or an object carried by the fluid. Shook teaches “[a] lower region of shutter
`
`30 is releasably coupled to a portion of sill by a fin 50. A coupling region is that
`
`portion 30 of shutter 30 swing arc where fin 50 is in contact with a portion of sill
`
`28, at least one tab 40 fixed to and projecting away from sill 28, or a combination
`
`of both. Movement of shutter 30 to, from or through a coupling region is hampered
`
`by the releasable coupling of shutter 30 to sill 28 by fin 50. The presence of at least
`
`one tab 40 fixed to and projecting away from sill 28 hampers movement of shutter
`
`30 to, from, or through a coupling region. . . Movement of shutter 30 about a swing
`
`arc can be in response to a floodwater pressure differential in or across duct 15.
`
`Ex. 1002, 4:28-45.
`
`4.
`
`One or more second connectors configured to
`
`couple the frame to the structure. Shook does not teach the second connectors.
`
`However, Walitsky teaches “[t]he frame assembly may further comprise a set of
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
` U.S. Pat. No. 9,909,302 Docket No. 62354/00000
`
`
`
`opposing ribs 23, located on the upper internal portion of the frame assembly and
`
`disposed to removably retain the door assembly 30 via physical contact with the
`
`upper portion of the door assembly 30. Ex. 1003, 3:[0037], FIG. 1.
`
`b. Claim 3 Elements
`
`1. The flood vent of claim 1, wherein the one or more first
`
`connectors comprise one or more bumps positioned on an inner perimeter of the
`
`frame. Shook teaches “[a] lower region of shutter 30 is releasably coupled to a
`
`portion of sill by a fin 50. A coupling region is that portion 30 of shutter 30 swing
`
`arc where fin 50 is in contact with a portion of sill 28, at least one tab 40 fixed to
`
`and projecting away from sill 28, or a combination of both. Movement of shutter
`
`30 to, from or through a coupling region is hampered by the releasable coupling of
`
`shutter 30 to sill 28 by fin 50. The presence of at least one tab 40 fixed to and
`
`projecting away from sill 28 hampers movement of shutter 30 to, from, or through
`
`a coupling region. . . Movement of shutter 30 about a swing arc can be in response
`
`to a floodwater pressure differential in or across duct 15. Ex. 1002, 4:28-45, FIG.
`
`1.
`
`c. Claim 7 Elements
`
`1. A flood vent, comprising: a frame configured to form a
`
`fluid passageway through an opening in a structure. Shook teaches “a flood vent
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
` U.S. Pat. No. 9,909,302 Docket No. 62354/00000
`
`
`for a structure comprising a shuttered duct. . . . formed in a housing” Ex. 1002, 6:5,
`
`FIG. 1.
`
`2. A metal panel configured to be coupled to the frame in
`
`the fluid passageway so as to at least partially block the fluid passageway through
`
`the opening in the structure. Shook teaches the duct “pivotally fixed to a shutter
`
`positioned within said duct, wherein said shutter swings between a closed position
`
`and an open position in response to a floodwater pressure differential in said duct.
`
`Ex. 1002, 6:12-16, FIG. 1.
`
`3. One or more connectors configured to couple the metal
`
`panel to the frame, wherein the one or more connectors are further configured to
`
`uncouple the metal panel from the frame when 0.5-5.0 pounds per square inch of
`
`pressure is applied to a portion of the metal panel on a first side of the metal panel
`
`by the one or more of a fluid or an object carried by the fluid, so as to reduce an
`
`amount of blockage of the fluid passageway provided by the metal panel, wherein
`
`the one or more connectors are further configured to uncouple the metal panel from
`
`the frame when 0.5-5.0 pounds per square inch of pressure is applied to a portion
`
`of the metal panel on a second side of the metal panel opposite of the first side of
`
`the metal panel by the one or more of the fluid or the object carried by the fluid, so
`
`as to reduce an amount of blockage of the fluid passageway provided by the metal
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
` U.S. Pat. No. 9,909,302 Docket No. 62354/00000
`
`
`
`panel. Shook teaches “[a] lower region of shutter 30 is releasably coupled to a
`
`portion of sill by a fin 50. A coupling region is that portion 30 of shutter 30 swing
`
`arc where fin 50 is in contact with a portion of sill 28, at least one tab 40 fixed to
`
`and projecting away from sill 28, or a combination of both. Movement of shutter
`
`30 to, from or through a coupling region is hampered by the releasable coupling of
`
`shutter 30 to sill 28 by fin 50. The presence of at least one tab 40 fixed to and
`
`projecting away from sill 28 hampers movement of shutter 30 to, from, or through
`
`a coupling region. . . Movement of shutter 30 about a swing arc can be in response
`
`to a floodwater pressure differential in or across duct 15. Ex. 1002, 4:28-45, FIG.
`
`1. Walitsky teaches “[t]he frame assembly may further comprise a set of opposing
`
`ribs 23, located on the upper internal portion of the frame assembly and disposed to
`
`removably retain the door assembly 30 via physical contact with the upper portion
`
`of the door assembly 30. Ex. 1003, 3:[0037], FIG. 1.
`
`d. Claim 11 Elements
`
`1. The flood vent of claim 7, wherein the one or more
`
`connectors comprise one or more of: one or more raised bumps positioned on an
`
`inner perimeter of the frame and configured to uncouple the panel from the frame
`
`when 0.5-5.0 pounds per square inch of pressure is applied to the portion of the
`
`panel by the one or more of the fluid or the object carried by the fluid. Shook
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
` U.S. Pat. No. 9,909,302 Docket No. 62354/00000
`
`
`teaches “[a] lower region of shutter 30 is releasably coupled to a portion of sill by a
`
`fin 50. A coupling region is that portion 30 of shutter 30 swing arc where fin 50 is
`
`in contact with a portion of sill 28, at least one tab 40 fixed to and projecting away
`
`from sill 28, or a combination of both. Movement of shutter 30 to, from or through
`
`a coupling region is hampered by the releasable coupling of shutter 30 to sill 28 by
`
`fin 50. The presence of at least one tab 40 fixed to and projecting away from sill 28
`
`hampers movement of shutter 30 to, from, or through a coupling region. . .
`
`Movement of shutter 30 about a swing arc can be in response to a floodwater
`
`pressure differential in or across duct 15. Ex. 1002, 4:28-45, FIG. 1. Walitsky
`
`teaches “[t]he frame assembly may further comprise a set of opposing ribs 23,
`
`located on the upper internal portion of the frame assembly and disposed to
`
`removably retain the door assembly 30 via physical contact with the upper portion
`
`of the door assembly 30. Ex. 1003, 3:[0037], FIG. 1.
`
`e. Claim 12 Elements
`
`1. flood vent, comprising: a frame configured to form a
`
`fluid passageway through an opening in a structure. A flood vent, comprising: A
`
`frame configured to form a fluid passageway. Shook teaches “a flood vent for a
`
`structure comprising a shuttered duct. . . . formed in a housing” Ex. 1002, 6:5, FIG.
`
`1.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
` U.S. Pat. No. 9,909,302 Docket No. 62354/00000
`
`2. A panel configured to be coupled to the frame in the fluid
`
`passageway so as to at least partially block the fluid passageway through the
`
`opening in the structure. Shook teaches the duct “pivotally fixed to a shutter
`
`positioned within said duct, wherein said shutter swings between a closed position
`
`and an open position in response to a floodwater pressure differential in said duct.
`
`Ex. 1002, 6:12-16, FIG. 1.
`
`2. One or more connectors configured to couple the frame
`
`to the structure, the one or more connectors further configured to uncouple the
`
`frame from the structure when a first predetermined amount of pressure is applied
`
`to one or more of a portion of the panel on a first side of the panel or a portion of
`
`the frame on a first side of the frame by one or more of a fluid or an object carried
`
`by the fluid, so as to reduce an amount of blockage of the fluid passageway, the
`
`one or more connectors further configured to uncouple the frame from the structure
`
`when the first predetermined amount of pressure is applied to one or more of a
`
`portion of the panel on a second side of the panel opposite of the first side of the
`
`panel or a portion of the frame on a second side of the frame opposite of the first
`
`side of the frame by one or more of the fluid or the object carried by the fluid, so as
`
`to reduce the amount of blockage of the fluid passageway. Shook teaches “[a]
`
`lower region of shutter 30 is releasably coupled to a portion of sill by a fin 50. A
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
` U.S. Pat. No. 9,909,302 Docket No. 62354/00000
`
`
`
`coupling region is that portion 30 of shutter 30 swing arc where fin 50 is in contact
`
`with a portion of sill 28, at least one tab 40 fixed to and projecting away from sill
`
`28, or a combination of both. Movement of shutter 30 to, from or through a
`
`coupling region is hampered by the releasable coupling of shutter 30 to sill 28 by
`
`fin 50. The presence of at least one tab 40 fixed to and projecting away from sill 28
`
`hampers movement of shutter 30 to, from, or through a coupling region. . .
`
`Movement of shutter 30 about a swing arc can be in response to a floodwater
`
`pressure differential in or across duct 15. Ex. 1002, 4:28-45, FIG. 1. Walitsky
`
`teaches “[t]he frame assembly may further comprise a set of opposing ribs 23,
`
`located on the upper internal portion of the frame assembly and disposed to
`
`removably retain the door assembly 30 via physical contact with the upper portion
`
`of the door assembly 30. Ex. 1003, 3:[0037], FIG. 1.
`
`f. Claim 18 Elements
`
`3. The flood vent of claim 12, wherein the one or more
`
`connectors comprise one or more of: one or more raised bumps positioned on an
`
`inner perimeter of the opening in the structure and configured to uncouple the
`
`frame from the structure when the first predetermined amount of pressure is
`
`applied to the one or more of the portion of the panel on the first side of the panel
`
`or the portion of the frame on the first side of the frame by the one or more of the
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
` U.S. Pat. No. 9,909,302 Docket No. 62354/00000
`
`
`
`fluid or the object carried by the fluid. Shook teaches “[a] lower region of shutter
`
`30 is releasably coupled to a portion of sill by a fin 50. A coupling region is that
`
`portion 30 of shutter 30 swing arc where fin 50 is in contact with a portion of sill
`
`28, at least one tab 40 fixed to and projecting away from sill 28, or a combination
`
`of both. Movement of shutter 30 to, from or through a coupling region is hampered
`
`by the releasable coupling of shutter 30 to sill 28 by fin 50. The presence of at least
`
`one tab 40 fixed to and projecting away from sill 28 hampers movement of shutter
`
`30 to, from, or through a coupling region. . . Movement of shutter 30 about a swing
`
`arc can be in response to a floodwater pressure differential in or across duct 15.
`
`Ex. 1002, 4:28-45, FIG. 1. Walitsky teaches “[t]he frame assembly may further
`
`comprise a set of opposing ribs 23, located on the upper internal portion of the
`
`frame assembly and disposed to removably retain the door assembly 30 via
`
`physical contact with the upper portion of the door assembly 30. Ex. 1003,
`
`3:[0037], FIG. 1.
`
`3.
`
`‘302 IS ANTICIPATED BY SHOOK IN LIGHT OF
`WALITSKY.
`As shown above, each of the claim elements of the Claims at issue in the
`
`‘302 patent are anticipated by Shook in light of Walitsky. It would have been
`
`obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Shook to add tabs (or connectors as
`
`described in ‘302) to the upper portion of a flood vent frame in order to retain a
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
` U.S. Pat. No. 9,909,302 Docket No. 62354/00000
`
`
`
`panel within the frame and allowing the release of the pa