UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`LIFECORE FITNESS, INC.
`d/b/a ASSAULT FITNESS
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WOODWAY USA, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,799,745 to Bayerlein et al.
`
`Case No.: IPR2023-00849
`
`______________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2023-00849
`Patent No.: 10,799,745
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: LCF0114IPR
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Table of Authorities .............................................................................................. iii
`
`List of Exhibits ...................................................................................................... v
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
`
`Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`“bearings” / “support” / “disposed . . . on” ......................................... 2
`
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................ 4
`
`IV. The Asserted Combinations Render the Challenged Claims
`Unpatentable ................................................................................................ 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Socwell discloses “a plurality of bearings” (Claims [1.4], 17,
`18) (Ground 3) ................................................................................... 5
`Socwell discloses “the plurality of bearings at least partially
`supporting the running belt” (Claim 17) and “disposing a
`running belt on the plurality of bearings” (Claim 18) ........................ 5
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine
`Schonenberger and Socwell ............................................................... 6
`1.
`The Combination of Schonenberger and Socwell
`discloses rollters that “define at least a portion of a
`curved top profile.”.................................................................. 6
`2. Modified Schonenberger is not merely Schonenberger
`flipped over. ............................................................................. 7
`Schonenberger’s Slat-type Running Belt Could be Used
`with a Curved Running Surface ............................................... 9
`a.
`Petition accounted for the slat-style belt of
`Schonenberger ............................................................... 9
`Dr. Blair relies on an unused embodiment to allege
`Schonenberger’s belt cannot be curved. ......................... 9
`Schonenberger does not teach away from combining with
`Socwell. ..................................................................................10
`D. A POSA would have motivated to combine Magid with
`Schonenberger and Socwell ..............................................................13
`1.
`Schonenberger, Socwell, and Magid are all in the same
`field: Exercise Equipment, which includes exercise use
`and therapeutic use..................................................................13
`2. Magid does not teach away from its combination with
`Schonenberger and Socwell ....................................................15
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`b.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2023-00849
`Patent No.: 10,799,745
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: LCF0114IPR
`
`E.
`
`A POSA would have been motivated to substitute Sclater for
`Magid. ..............................................................................................15
`1.
`Petitioner’s obviousness arguments do not rely on
`hindsight .................................................................................15
`
`V.
`
`Secondary Considerations Fail ....................................................................18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`E.
`
`2.
`
`Commercial Success .........................................................................18
`1.
`PO’s Sales Did Not Result From Unique Claim
`Characteristics ........................................................................19
`Sales Figures Do Not Show Commercial Success Absent
`Market Share Evidence ...........................................................22
`No Other Factor Evidence .......................................................24
`3.
`PO’s Sales Data is Missing Samsara’s Data ............................25
`4.
`Industry Praise Was Not Due to the Claimed Invention ....................28
`Copying ............................................................................................29
`1.
`Treadmills ...............................................................................29
`2.
`LifeCORE Documents ............................................................31
`Failure of Others ...............................................................................33
`Passage of Time Between Prior Art and the Invention ......................33
`
`VI. Conclusion ..................................................................................................34
`
`Certificate of Service ...............................................................................................
`
`Certificate of Compliance Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 .........................................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2023-00849
`Patent No.: 10,799,745
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: LCF0114IPR
`
`Dow Chemical Co. v. Halliburton,
`
`324 U.S. 320 (1945) ....................................................................................18
`
`Ex parte Detroit Radiant Prod. Co.,
`
`Appeal 2008-6291, 2009 WL 164096 (BPAI Jan. 22, 2009) ........... 19, 21, 24
`
`Ex parte Jamieson,
`
`Appeal 2015-002630, 2016 WL 5543491 (PTAB Sept. 27, 2016) ..............33
`
`Ex parte Jellá,
`
`Appeal 2008-1619, 90 U.S.P.Q.2d 1009,
`
`2008 WL 5693899 (BPAI Nov. 3, 2008) .................................. 19, 21, 22, 25
`
`Ex parte Jun Yang,
`
`Appeal 2014-006514, 2017 WL 1150710 (PTAB February 23, 2017) ........25
`
`Ex parte Sansone,
`
`Appeal 2023-001331, 2023 WL 4677708 (PTAB July 19, 2023) ................33
`
`Ex parte Whirlpool Corp.,
`
`Appeal 2013-008232, 2013 WL 5866602 (PTAB, Oct. 30, 2013) ...............28
`
`Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC,
`
`944 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ...................................................................18
`
`In re Gurley,
`
`27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .......................................................................15
`
`In re Huang,
`
`100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .....................................................................22
`
`In re Kahn,
`
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .....................................................................33
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Atty. Dkt. No.: LCF0114IPR
`
`Case No.: IPR2023-00849
`Patent No.: 10,799,745
`
`
`In re Keller,
`
`642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981) ......................................................................... 8
`
`In re Sneed,
`
`710 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .................................................................... 8
`
`Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc.,
`
`392 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ...................................................................34
`
`Lectrosonics, Inc., v. Zaxcom, Inc.,
`
`IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 (PTAB January 24, 2020) ..................................18
`
`Meiresonne v. Google, Inc.,
`
`849 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................. 12, 15
`
`Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................................................18
`
`Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,
`
`713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ...................................................................33
`
`Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc.,
`
`407 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................................................19
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 2
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................. 29, 30, 32, 33
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.11 ..................................................................................................32
`PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, November 2019 ................................... 2
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2023-00849
`Patent No.: 10,799,745
`
`
`
`
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: LCF0114IPR
`
`Exhibit #
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 10,799,745 (“the ‘745 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,799,745 File History (“the ‘745 Patent File
`History”)
`Declaration of Robert Giachetti, Ph.D. P.E. (“Giachetti”)
`Robert Giachetti, Ph.D. P.E. Curriculum Vitae (“Giachetti CV”)
`Complaint, Woodway USA, Inc., v. LifeCORE Fitness, Inc. d/b/a
`Assault Fitness, Case No. 3:22-cv-00492-JO-BLM, Southern District
`of California, Filed April 11, 2022 (“Complaint”) (Ex. 1005 at 1-8)
`
`Waiver of Service (April 13, 2022) (Ex. 1005 at 9-10)
`Amended Complaint, Woodway USA, Inc., v. LifeCORE Fitness, Inc.
`d/b/a Assault Fitness, Case No. 3:22-cv-00492-JO-BLM, Southern
`District of California, Filed October 24, 2022 (“Amended Complaint”)
`Treadmills: Supplier Guide © 2010. Trade Practices (Consumer
`Product Safety Standard) (Treadmills) Regulations 2009 (“ACCC
`Product Safety Supplier Guide”)
`U.S. Patent No. 641,424 to Ziebell (“Ziebell”)
`U.S. Patent No. 1,211,765 to Schmidt (“Schmidt”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,614,337 to Schonenberger (“Schonenberger”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,897,461 to Socwell (“Socwell”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,538,489 to Magid (“Magid”)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,637,206 to Chickering (“Chickering”)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,642,279 to Cutter (“Cutter”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,042,514 to Abelbeck (“Abelbeck”)
`Power Transmission Handbook, (Power Transmission Distributors
`Association 1993) (“PT Handbook”) (available at
`https://cod.on.worldcat.org/oclc/49571648)
`Neil Sclater and Nicholas P. Chironis, Mechanisms & Mechanical
`Devices Sourcebook, Third Ed., (McGraw-Hill 2001) (“Sclater”)
`(available at
`https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=26&recCount=2
`5&recPointer=0&bibId=12308523)
`1018 Mechanical Clutches and Torque Overload Devices, (Emerson
`Industrial Automation, 2001) (“Emerson”)
`
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`
`1017
`
`v
`
`

`

`Atty. Dkt. No.: LCF0114IPR
`
`Case No.: IPR2023-00849
`Patent No.: 10,799,745
`
`
`Exhibit #
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1026
`1027
`
`1028
`
`Description
`Standard Specification for Motorized Treadmills, (ASTM, 2005)
`(“ASTM Standard”)
`Stationary Training Equipment – Part 6: Treadmills, additional
`specific safety requirements and test methods. (ISO, 2005) (“ISO
`Standard”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,986,169 File History (“the ‘169 Patent File History”)
`Responsive Claim Constructions, Woodway USA, Inc., v. LifeCORE
`Fitness, Inc. d/b/a Assault Fitness, Case No. 3:22-cv-00492-JO-BLM,
`Southern District of California, Filed January 5, 2022
`United States District Courts – National Judicial Caseload Profile,
`December 2022
`Inhabitat, “HUMAN-POWERED GYMS in Hong Kong” (March 8,
`2007) (available at https://inhabitat.com/human-powered-gyms-in-
`hong-kong/)
`1025 Minute Order, Woodway USA, Inc., v. LifeCORE Fitness, Inc. d/b/a
`Assault Fitness, Case No. 3:22-cv-00492-JO-BLM, Southern District
`of California, March 30, 2023.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,561,884 File History (“the ‘884 File History”)
`Claim Construction Brief, Woodway USA, Inc., v. LifeCORE Fitness,
`Inc. d/b/a Assault Fitness, Case No. 3:22-cv-00492-JO-BLM,
`Southern District of California, March 1, 2023
`Responsive Claim Construction Brief, Woodway USA, Inc., v.
`LifeCORE Fitness, Inc. d/b/a Assault Fitness, Case No. 3:22-cv-
`00492-JO-BLM, Southern District of California, March 14, 2023
`U.S. Patent No. 4,635,771 to Shoji (“Shoji”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,923,746 to Skowronski (“Skowronski”)
`Intentionally blank
`Intentionally blank
`Claim Construction Order Woodway USA, Inc., v. LifeCORE Fitness,
`Inc. d/b/a Assault Fitness No. 3:22-cv-00492-JO-BLM, Dkt. No. 59,
`Southern District of California, November 14, 2023
`Intentionally blank
`Intentionally blank
`Second Declaration of Robert Giachetti, Ph.D. P.E. (“Giachetti”)
`
`1029
`1030
`1031
`1032
`1033
`
`1034
`1035
`1036
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2023-00849
`Patent No.: 10,799,745
`
`
`Exhibit #
`1037
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: LCF0114IPR
`
`Description
`Confidential Transcript of Deposition of Eric A. Weber taken on
`March 19, 2024. LifeCore Fitness, Inc., d/b/a Assault Fitness v.
`Woodway USA, Inc., IPR2023-00836, IPR2023-00843, and IPR2023-
`00849
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Kim. B. Blair taken on April 8, 2024
`LifeCore Fitness, Inc., d/b/a Assault Fitness v. Woodway USA, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00836
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Kim. B. Blair taken on April 8, 2024
`LifeCore Fitness, Inc., d/b/a Assault Fitness v. Woodway USA, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00843
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Kim. B. Blair taken on April 9, 2024
`LifeCore Fitness, Inc., d/b/a Assault Fitness v. Woodway USA, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00849
`1041 Woodway 4Front Owners Manual October 24, 2023 OM_EN_V2
`(accessed March 31, 2024) (available at
`https://www.woodway.com/treadmills/4-front/)
`1042 Woodway Homepage, (accessed March 31, 2024) (available at
`https://www.woodway.com/)
`1043 Woodway Curve Specification (accessed March 31, 2024) (available
`at https://www.woodway.com/treadmills/curve/)
`1044 Woodway Manual Treadmills Webpage (accessed March 31, 2024)
`(available at https://www.woodway.com/manual-treadmills/)
`Confidential Condensed Transcript of Deposition of Traci Bates taken
`on January 26, 2024 Woodway USA, Inc., v. LifeCORE Fitness, Inc.
`d/b/a Assault Fitness, Case No. 3:22-cv-00492-JO-BLM, Southern
`District of California
`1046 Woodway Trueform Trainer Webpage dated August 12, 2020
`(accessed April 4, 2024) available from Wayback at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20200812204597/https://www.woodway.
`com/product/trueform/trainer-powered-by-woodway/)
`Confidential Draft AirRunner Manual Treadmill Owner’s Manual
`Assault Fitness Release v.01 (20.February,17)
`Correspondence with Patent Owner dated April 15, 2024
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1045
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2023-00849
`Patent No.: 10,799,745
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: LCF0114IPR
`
`Patent Owner (“PO”) focuses on the “safety device” but does not dispute
`
`Magid and Sclater disclose the “safety device” limitations. PO did not invent the
`
`“safety device” (one-way bearing/clutch), nor was it the first to add it to a
`
`treadmill.
`
`PO admits Grounds 1-3 teach all claim limitations except: 1) “a plurality of
`
`bearings,” 2) “a plurality of bearings at least partially supporting the running
`
`belt” and 3) “disposing a running belt on the plurality of bearings.” PO’s
`
`arguments fail because the claims are taught by the asserted art and PO’s
`
`arguments focus on unclaimed features.
`
`PO’s challenges fail because they focus on features not included in the
`
`proposed combinations, e.g., Socwell’s bearings and belt, Magid’s dual belts, and
`
`Sclater’s toothless ratchet gear.
`
`PO’s secondary considerations of nonobviousness arguments also fail
`
`because inter alia, there is no nexus to the “safety device.”
`
`II. Claim Construction
`
`Petitioner proposed alternate claim construction positions in Ground 2 for
`
`the terms: “substantially prevent”, “safety device”, and “shaft.”. (Pet.,14-16.) The
`
`Board did not construe any terms to reach their institution decision. (DI,24.) The
`
`District Court issued its Markman Order (Ex.1033) on November 14, 2023 and
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2023-00849
`Patent No.: 10,799,745
`
`
`construed the terms “substantially prevent[],” “safety device,” and “shaft.” None of
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: LCF0114IPR
`
`these constructions would affect Petitioner’s analysis in Grounds 1 and 3 if
`
`adopted by the Board. (Ex.1036,¶¶9-11.)
`
`A.
`
`“bearings” / “support” / “disposed . . . on”
`
`PO construed several terms, but failed to construe “bearings”, “support”,
`
`and “disposed . . . on.” (POR,4-6.) Therefore, PO concedes that these claim
`
`limitations should be given their plain and ordinary meaning and has waived any
`
`right to request specific constructions in future replies. (PTAB CTPG,73–74.) But,
`
`rather than give the claims full breath, PO attempts to read limitations from the
`
`specification into the claims—this is improper. See Thorner v. Sony Computer
`
`Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).
`
`For example, PO, pointing to preferred embodiments in their specification,
`
`argues these terms require a specific location and weight-bearing relationship
`
`between the bearings and the running belt. (POR,7-14;Ex.1036,¶12.) The PTAB
`
`previously considered and rejected PO construction for “support.” (DI,22,48.)
`
`Here, PO reiterates its implied construction and extends it to three terms.
`
`During his deposition, Dr. Blair confirmed that: 1) the claims do not
`
`expressly require these additional limitations; 2) PO is not proposing a construction
`
`to add these limitations; 3) the District Court did not provide such constructions;
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2023-00849
`Patent No.: 10,799,745
`
`
`and 4) PO is reading in limitations from the specification to support their
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: LCF0114IPR
`
`improperly narrow constructions. (Ex.1040, 24:7-28:13;Ex.1036, ¶13.)
`
`Citing the ’745 Patent disclosure at 11:39-40, PO states that “[i]n the ’745
`
`patent, the ‘plurality of bearings’ is only described and depicted as lying below and
`
`supporting the running belt 16” and “[t]his requires the bearings 208 to be
`
`positioned below the running belt 16.” (POR, 7-8.) Further Figure 5 shows the
`
`bearings 208 below an upper portion of the running belt 16 and above a lower
`
`portion of the running belt 16. (Ex.1036,¶15.)
`
`Ex.1001,Fig. 5
`
`
`
`The ’745 Patent disclosure relied on by PO for this construction states the
`
`“running belt 16 contacts and is supported in part by the bearings 208 of the
`
`bearing rails.” (Ex.1001,11:39-40.) This disclosure of partial support by contact
`
`does not provide specific location and weight-bearing relationship. Further, the
`
`’745 Patent describes other bearings not providing a weight-bearing relationship
`
`with the belt. For example, Dr. Blair admitted that the related ’580 Patent does not
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2023-00849
`Patent No.: 10,799,745
`
`
`“describe the one-way bearing assembly as providing a weight-bearing relationship
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: LCF0114IPR
`
`with the running belt.” (Ex.1038,52:19-22;Ex.1036,¶16.)
`
`Furthermore, the ’745 Patent uses “disposed on” to refer to numerous
`
`arrangements, including arrangements that are not physically above. For example,
`
`the ’745 Patent uses the term “disposed on” to refer to an interior and lateral
`
`arrangement of the endless belts 226 relative to the slats 228 of the running belt 16:
`
`“The endless belts 226 are shown disposed on opposite sides of the running belt
`
`16, generally interior to the outer, lateral edge of the slats 228.” (Ex.1001,13:58-
`
`611; Ex.1036,¶16,25-26.)
`
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner disagrees with PO’s proposed skill level (POR,3-4) because both
`
`education and industry experience are important for a POSA to understand the
`
`’745 Patent. Further, PO’s proposed skill level does not address exercise
`
`biomechanics, which is important to understand the design of curved treadmills.
`
`(Ex.1036,¶¶17-18.)
`
`PO’s statement that “the level of ordinary skill in the art as articulated by
`
`Patent Owner would not exclude certain of the inventors” (POR, 4) is irrelevant
`
`
`1 Emphasis added by Petitioner unless indicated otherwise.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2023-00849
`Patent No.: 10,799,745
`
`
`and unsupported evidence--Dr. Blair could not identify any inventors for the
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: LCF0114IPR
`
`related ‘580 Patent without engineering degrees.” (Ex.1038,9:24-10:11.)
`
`IV. The Asserted Combinations Render the Challenged Claims
`Unpatentable
`
`A.
`
`Socwell discloses “a plurality of bearings” (Claims [1.4], 17,
`18) (Ground 3)
`
`
`
`PO argues, Socwell does not disclose “a plurality of bearings” because the
`
`’745 Patent “requires the bearings 208 to be positioned below the running belt 16.”
`
`(POR,6-7.) PO further argues that “[a] POSA would therefore understand the ’745
`
`specification to require a relative, weight-bearing relationship between the running
`
`belt and the plurality of bearings.” (Id.,8;Ex.1036,¶19-20.)
`
`As discussed above, this relies on an incorrect (and only implied) claim
`
`construction that improperly narrows the claims by reading in features of the
`
`preferred embodiment to preserve validity. As explained in the Petition, Socwell’s
`
`rollers 98 provide a “plurality of bearings” and as required by claims 1, 17, and 18.
`
`(Pet.,76-77,80,109; Ex.1036,¶21.) The deck 56 also forms a bottom “bearing.”
`
`(Pet., 80; Ex. 1003, ¶¶65-70, 401.)
`
`B.
`
`Socwell discloses “the plurality of bearings at least partially
`supporting the running belt” (Claim 17) and “disposing a
`running belt on the plurality of bearings” (Claim 18)
`
`PO argues “disposed on” and “support[ed]” require “the structure must be
`
`positioned below the running belt such that the structure supports and/or bears at
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2023-00849
`Patent No.: 10,799,745
`
`
`least some of the weight of the running belt.” (POR,13, Ex. 2018, ¶102-103.) This
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: LCF0114IPR
`
`implied claim construction is wrong. Supra,§II.D. The running belt 16 is at least
`
`partially supported by, and disposed on, the rollers 98 and the deck 56 which are
`
`“bearings.” (Pet.,109-110,82-83,Ex.1003,¶396,404) That is all the claims require.
`
`(Ex.1036,¶¶24-26.)
`
`C. A POSA would have been motivated to combine
`Schonenberger and Socwell
`
`In relation to Grounds 1–2, PO alleges, “Petitioner mistakenly equates
`
`Socwell’s disclosure with Schonenberger’s (Claims 1, 10, 18, 21).” (POR,14.) But,
`
`Petitioner did not rely on Socwell’s bearings as motivation to combine Socwell’s
`
`and Schonenberger. Instead, Petitioner stated a POSA would have known how to
`
`modify placement of the plurality of roller bearings 12 of Schonenberger to be
`
`curvilinear, like the curved, plain bearing (deck 56) of Socwell, resulting in curved
`
`running surface to increase safety and reduce impact loading of the user’s joints.
`
`(Pet.,33-36;Ex.1036,¶30.)
`
`1.
`
`The Combination of Schonenberger and Socwell
`discloses rollters that “define at least a portion of a
`curved top profile.”
`
`PO alleges Petitioner relied on Schonenberger alone for disclosing a “curved
`
`top profile” limitations of claim 18. (POR,17.) But, Petitioner relied on modified
`
`Schonenberger for a “curved profile”. (Pet., 29; Ex. 1003, ¶¶246-247.)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2023-00849
`Patent No.: 10,799,745
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: LCF0114IPR
`
`2. Modified Schonenberger is not merely Schonenberger
`flipped over.
`
`PO incorrectly alleges modified Schonenberger is merely flipping the roller
`
`arrangement 12 up-side-down. (POR,21.) Based on this incorrect characterization,
`
`PO argues modified Schonenberger is not curved. (POR,26). But, Petitioner’s
`
`position is it would have been obvious to arrange the rollers 12 curvilinearly like
`
`the curved deck 56 of Socwell. (Pet.,33-37;Ex.1036,¶32.) Dr. Blair conceded this
`
`in his deposition: Petitioner’s proposed modifications to Schonenberger’s Figure 1
`
`results in a “surface . . . [that] is actually similar in shape to the Socwell reference.”
`
`(Ex.1040,44:8-13;Ex.1036,¶¶35.)
`
`Petition,54
`
`
`
`PO also mischaracterizes the petition’s use of the below annotated figure.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2023-00849
`Patent No.: 10,799,745
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: LCF0114IPR
`
`Petition,42
`
`
`
`PO attempts to distill Petitioner’s multi-page obviousness analysis to a
`
`single Figure—Figure 12, (POR, 24.) This is wrong. First, the Petition explains
`
`modified Schonenberger is the rollers 12 arranged like the curved deck 56 of
`
`Socwell. (Pet.,33-37.) Second, the above annotated figure is merely a visual aid
`
`showing how Schonenberger’s running belt 1 would sag to conform with the
`
`profile defined by the rollers 12. (Ex.1036,¶37.)
`
`PO attacks this visual aid as if it is a blueprint for building a curved
`
`treadmill. (Ex.1036,¶38.) But, “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the
`
`features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of
`
`the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those
`
`references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
`
`Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,
`
`1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2023-00849
`Patent No.: 10,799,745
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: LCF0114IPR
`
`In sum, PO critiques Petitioner’s annotations to Schonenberger Figure 12
`
`while admitting Petitioner’s annotations to Schonenberger’s Figure 1 result in a
`
`curved running surface that corresponds with Socwell. (POR,23,Ex.1040,43:21-
`
`44:25.) Accordingly, the combination of Schonenberger and Socwell teaches a
`
`“curved running surface.” (Ex.1036,¶38.)
`
`3.
`
`Schonenberger’s Slat-type Running Belt Could be
`Used with a Curved Running Surface
`
`a.
`
`Petition accounted for the slat-style belt of
`Schonenberger
`
`PO argues the slat-type belt of Schonenberger would not work in a curved
`
`treadmill. (POR,28-29;Ex.2018,¶137.) Dr. Giachetti described different types of
`
`treadmill running surfaces (e.g., Socwell’s belt and Schonenberger’s track) and
`
`corresponding bearing surfaces as understood by a POSA in the state-of-the-art
`
`section of his
`
`first declaration.
`
`(Ex.1003,¶¶58-60,65-70;Ex.1036,¶¶40.)
`
`Additionally, Petitioner explained the heavy slats 4 would aid in creating the
`
`curved running surface. (Pet.,37;Ex.1036,¶41.)
`
`b.
`
`Dr. Blair relies on an unused embodiment to
`allege Schonenberger’s belt cannot be curved.
`
`PO argues Schonenberger’s Figure 9 cannot be curved. (POR,34;Ex.2018,
`
`¶159.) But, Petitioner relied on Figure 10, which is structurally different.
`
`(Ex.1003,¶¶157,219,224,239;Ex.1036,¶42.) A POSA would have known that slat-
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2023-00849
`Patent No.: 10,799,745
`
`
`style running surfaces were used as curved belts prior to the invention of the ’745
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: LCF0114IPR
`
`Patent,
`
`e.g.,
`
`Schmidt
`
`(Ex.1009,Fig.1).
`
`(Ex.1003,¶¶53,62;Ex.1036,¶43;
`
`Ex.1009,1:50-159,Fig.1.)
`
`PO also alleges the slats would overlap and pinch when curved.
`
`(POR,31,Ex.2018,¶¶143-144.) This has no merit. The individual slats 4 cannot
`
`overlap because the belts 5’ maintain positioning of the slats 4 relative to each
`
`other. (Ex.1010,4:37–41;Ex.1036,¶43.)
`
`The slats 4 are also designed for relative movement. (Ex.1010,5:54–
`
`56;Ex.1036,¶47.) A POSA would have recognized the movable surface 1 of
`
`Schonenberger as suitable for a curved running surface. (1036,¶43.)
`
`4.
`
`Schonenberger does not teach away from combining
`with Socwell.
`
`PO argues Schonenberger teaches away because it would “result in running
`
`belt 1 resting directly against support belts 13, 13” which could affect the “small
`
`amount of space (e.g., ½ cm) between running belt 1 and support belts 13” and the
`
`“pleasant, springy feel.” (POR,33.) First, the belts 13/13’ are an optional feature
`
`(Ex.1010,9:1–2) that are not included in the embodiment that Petitioner relied on—
`
`Figures 10 and 10A—where the movable surface 1 rides directly on the rollers 12
`
`via its modified belt 5’. (Pet.,31,39;Ex.1036,¶47.)
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2023-00849
`Patent No.: 10,799,745
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: LCF0114IPR
`
`Pet.,31 Annotated
`
`
`
`Schonenberger provides resilient cushion with modified belts 5’ in
`
`combination with the padding 16. (Ex.1010,8:37–40,8:67–9:02.) Therefore,
`
`Schonenberger does not teach away (nor are critical features from Schonenberger
`
`undermined or eliminated) as Petitioner proposed to use the movable surface 1 as
`
`described in the embodiment shown in Figures10/10A albeit it with the rollers 12
`
`modified into a curved arrangement as disclosed in Socwell. (Ex.1036,¶46,48.)
`
`Second, Schonenberger discloses a 0.5 mm gap (Ex.1010, 5:55-56) not a 0.5
`
`cm gap and a POSA would have known that a user would not perceive a 0.5 mm
`
`gap. (Ex.1036,¶48.) Further, Petitioner never said the tiny 0.5 mm gap disclosed in
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2023-00849
`Patent No.: 10,799,745
`
`
`Schonenberger was eliminated by the modification. Indeed, the 0.5 mm gap
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: LCF0114IPR
`
`between the rollers 12 and belt 5’ could be provided. (Ex.1036,¶49.)
`
`Schonenberger does not expressly discourage removing the 0.5 mm gap and
`
`therefore does not teach away. (Ex.1036,¶46-47.) Meiresonne v. Google, Inc., 849
`
`F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted) (“A reference teaches away
`
`‘when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged
`
`from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
`
`divergent from the path that was taken’ in the claim. A reference that ‘merely
`
`expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize,
`
`discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into’ the claimed invention does
`
`not teach away.”).
`
`Furthermore, while Schonenberger seeks “a pleasant, springy feel” he does
`
`not proscribe a gap between the belt/roller as the only way of doing so. Indeed,
`
`Schonenberger provides an impacting-reducing cover 16, which is present on
`
`Petitioner’s modification of Schonenberger. (Pet.,30;Ex.1010,4:58–66,Fig.10.)
`
`Thus, even if the 0.5 mm gap was removed, the “springy feel” would still be
`
`achieved by the impacting-reducing cover 16. (Ex.1036,¶48.)
`
`Moreover, Socwell explains its curved deck reduces the physical impact to
`
`the joints and muscles. (Ex.1011,13:38-42.) Therefore, even if the rollers 12 were
`
`not spaced from the belts 5’ by 0.5 mm, the curved running surface would offset
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2023-00849
`Patent No.: 10,799,745
`
`
`any potential loss of springiness to reduce stress on joints and ligaments.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: LCF0114IPR
`
`(Ex.1036,¶48.) Thus, modified Schonenberger would function for its intended
`
`purpose. (Ex.1036,¶47.)
`
`D. A POSA would have motivated to combine Magid with
`Schonenberger and Socwell
`
`1.
`
`Schonenberger, Socwell, and Magid are all in the
`same field: Exercise Equipment, which includes
`exercise use and therapeutic use
`
`PO argues therapy and exercise are mutually exclusive uses of treadmills,
`
`i.e., Magid is therapeutic, whereas Socwell and Schonenberger are a non-
`
`therapeutic. (POR,35.) Even if true, which it is not23, Schonenberger, and Socwell
`
`treadmills are for exercise and therapeutic/rehabilitative use (Ex.1010,1:10–14;
`
`Ex.1011,3:1-9,3:52-57,13:38-47.) Accordingly, Schonenberger, Socwell, and
`
`Magid are from the same field. (Ex.1036,¶¶52-53.)
`
`
`2 Magid’s walker is for exercise too. (Ex.1012,1:53-56,3:23-27.)
`
`3 Magid further states, “this invention is not limited to the disclosed embodiments
`
`but is intended to cover various arrangements included within the spirit and scope
`
`of the broadest interpretation so as to encompass all such modifications and
`
`equivalent arrangements.” (Ex.1012,7:61-67.)
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2023-00849
`Patent No.: 10,799,745
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: LCF0114IPR
`
`The Petition explains why a POSA would have been motivated to combine
`
`Magid with Schonenberger
`
`and Socwell.
`
`(Pet.,46–50;Ex.1003,¶¶175–
`
`186;Ex.1036,¶58.) It would have been obvious to a POSA to combine modified
`
`Schonenberger’s
`
`treadmill with Magid’s control means
`
`to permit only
`
`unidirectional movement of the running belt to reduce the risk of a user stepping
`
`onto the running belt of the treadmill and losing their balance when the belt moves
`
`in the forward direction. (Id.) Dr. Blair identified the same problem of unintended
`
`motion with Socwell. (Ex.2018,¶175;Ex.1036,¶59.)
`
`Several professional organizations have produced standards regarding
`
`treadmill safety. (Ex.1019;Ex.1020,Ex.1007;Ex.1036,¶60.) As Dr. Giachetti
`
`explained in deposition, the ISO standard (Ex.1020) defines a treadmill as “training
`
`equipment with a unidirectional moving surface on which a walking or running
`
`activity can take place, where the feet are free to leave the moving surface.”
`
`(Ex.1020,4;Ex.2024,61:20-25.) Further, Dr. Blair explained a POSA would
`
`understand from this definition “that the [treadmill] is designed to be only walked
`
`on or run on in one direction.” (Ex.1040