UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Loctek Ergonomic Technology Corporation,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Varidesk LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,554,644 to Flaherty et al.
`
`PGR Case No. PGR2017-00036
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW OF CLAIMS 21-
`23, 25, AND 33-36 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,554,644 UNDER
`35 U.S.C. §§ 321-28 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.200 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`V. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ........................................................................................... iv 
`Mandatory notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) for post grant Review ....... 1 
`I. 
`Real party in interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................. 1 
`A. 
`Related matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ...................................... 1 
`B. 
`Lead and backup counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and
`C. 
`service information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ............................... 2 
`Payment of fees under 37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................... 2 
`II. 
`III.  Certification of word count under 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d) ................................ 3 
`IV.  Requirements for PGR under 37 C.F.R. § 42.204 .......................................... 3 
`Grounds for standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a) .............................. 3 
`A. 
`Identification of challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b) and
`B. 
`relief requested ..................................................................................... 3 
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 4 
`The prosecution history of the ’644 Patent .......................................... 5 
`A. 
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) ................................. 6 
`B. 
`Claim Construction .............................................................................. 6 
`C. 
`The Challenged Claims ........................................................................ 8 
`D. 
`Overview of Prior Art .......................................................................... 8 
`E. 
`1.
`Overview of Chouinard-518 [Ex. 1004-Chouinard] .................. 8 
` 
`2.
`Overview of Diffrient-466 [Ex. 1005-Diffrient] ....................... 9 
` 
`3.
`Overview of Leather-672 [Ex. 1006-Leather] ......................... 10 
` 
`4.
`Overview of Huang-251 [Ex. 1007-Huang] ............................ 11 
` 
`5.
`Overview of Gannett-515 [Ex. 1008-Gannett] ........................ 12 
` 
`6.
`Overview of Endelman-895 [Ex. 1009-Endelman] ................. 14 
` 
`Specific Grounds for Petition ....................................................................... 16 
`GROUND 1: Chouinard-518 modified per Diffrient-466,
`A. 
`Leather-672, and Huang-251 renders obvious Claims 21-23, 25,
`and 33-36 ............................................................................................ 16 
`ii
`
`VI. 
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`B. 
`
`The scope and content of the prior art ..................................... 16 
`1.
` 
`Rationale for Combining Prior Art .......................................... 17 
`2.
` 
`Challenged Claims for Ground 1 ............................................. 24 
`3.
` 
`GROUND 2: Gannett-515 in view of Chouinard-518, Diffrient-
`466, and Endelman-895 renders obvious Claims 21-23, 25, and
`33-36 ................................................................................................... 73 
`1.
`The scope and content of the prior art ..................................... 73 
` 
`2.
`Rationale for Combining Prior Art .......................................... 73 
` 
`3.
`Challenged Claims for Ground 2 ............................................. 77 
` 
`VII.  Conclusion .................................................................................................. 105 
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................. 107 
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 9,554,644 (“’644 patent”)
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`
`
`File history of U.S. Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`Declaration of Dr. Arthur G. Erdman, Regarding Invalidity Of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,554,644 (“Erdman”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,677,518 (“Chouinard-518”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,490,466 (“Diffrient-466”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,967,672 (“Leather-672”)
`
`Chinese Patent No. 2,637,251 Y (“Huang-251”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,545,515 (“Gannett-515”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,371,895 (“Endelman-895”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,577,452
`
`Certificate of English Translation for Chinese Patent No.
`2,637,251 Y
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,712,653
`
`U.S. Patent No. 1,824,822
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0145972A1
`
`Chinese Patent No. 2,637,251 Y (non-translated version)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
` Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`Loctek Ergonomic Technology Corporation (“Petitioner”) hereby seeks post
`
`grant review of Claims 21-23, 25, and 33-36 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,554,644 (Ex. 1001 (the “’644 patent”)). The Challenged Claims of
`
`the ’644 patent do not claim anything new; they claim previously-known
`
`adjustable height desks. The Challenged Claims in the patent should therefore be
`
`canceled for the reasons described in this Petition.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) FOR POST
`GRANT REVIEW
`A. Real party in interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`The real parties-in-interest in this petition are Loctek Ergonomic Technology
`
`Corporation (formerly known as Ningbo Loctek Visual Technology Corporation),
`
`No. 588, Qihang South Road, Yinzhou Economic Development Zone, Zhanqi
`
`Town, Yinzhou District, Ningbo, China 315191; Zhejiang Loctek Smart Drive
`
`Technology Co., Ltd., Science & Technology Zone, Jiangshan Town, Yinzhou
`
`District, Ningbo, China 315191; and Loctek Inc., 4569 Las Positas Road, Suite A,
`
`Livermore, CA 94551.
`
`B. Related matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`A pending federal district court litigation may affect or be affected by the
`
`decision in this proceeding: Varidesk LLC v. Ningbo Loctek Visual Technology
`
`Corporation, et al., No. 3-17-cv-00907 (N.D. Tex. March 30, 2017) and Varidesk
`
`v. Lumi Legend Corporation, et al., No. 3-17-cv-00904 (N.D. Tex. March 30,
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`2017). An ITC investigation, 337-TA-1054, was instituted by the ITC on April 28,
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`2017.
`
`C.
`Lead and backup counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and service
`information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Petitioner designates the following lead and backup counsel:
`
`Lead
`Counsel:
`
`Backup
`Counsel:
`
`Patrick J. McCarthy
`Registration No. 62,762
`2101 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20037
`Phone: (202) 533-2386
`Fax: (202) 331-3101
`mccarthyp@gtlaw.com
`Jonathan D. Ball, Ph.D.
`Registration No. 59,928
`MetLife Building
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Phone: (212) 801-2223
`Fax: (212) 801-6400
`ballj@gtlaw.com
`
`Service on Petitioner may be made by mail or hand delivery to: Greenberg
`
`Traurig, LLP, 2101 L Street N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20037.
`
`Petitioner also consents to electronic service by emailing counsel of record at
`
`mccarthyp@gtlaw.com, ballj@gtlaw.com, and loctek-pgrs@gtlaw.com.
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15
`
`Petitioner authorizes the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office to charge Deposit
`
`Account No. 50-2638 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b) for this Petition and
`
`further authorizes for any additional fees to be charged to this Deposit Account.
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d)
`Petitioner certifies that the word count in this Petition is 14,550 words, as
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`counted by the word-processing program (Microsoft Word 2010) used to generate
`
`this Petition, where such word count excludes the table of contents, table of
`
`authorities, mandatory notices, certificate of service, appendix of exhibits, and this
`
`certificate of word count. This Petition is in compliance with the 18,700 word
`
`limit set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(ii).
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR PGR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.204
`A. Grounds for standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’644 patent is available for PGR, and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting a PGR on the grounds
`
`identified in the petition.
`
`B.
`Identification of challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b) and relief
`requested
`
`Petitioner requests PGR of the Challenged Claims of the ʼ644 Patent under
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as set forth in the table below, and requests that each of
`
`the claims be found unpatentable. An explanation of how these claims are
`
`unpatentable under
`
`the statutory grounds
`
`identified below,
`
`including an
`
`identification of where each element is found in the prior art, is provided in the
`
`detailed description that follows. Citations to expert testimony in support of each
`
`ground are to the declaration of Dr. Arthur G. Erdman (“Ex. 1003-Erdman”).
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`
`Ground of
`Unpatentability1
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`’644 Patent Claim(s)
`
`Basis for Rejection
`
`Ground 1
`
`21-23, 25, 33-36
`
`Ground 2
`
`21-23, 25, 33-36
`
`Chouinard-518 modified per the
`keyboard tray of Diffrient-466, the
`locking mechanism of Leather-672,
`and the handle linkage of Huang-
`251
`
`Gannett-515 in view of Chouinard-
`518 and modified per the keyboard
`tray of Diffrient-466 and
`the
`locking mechanism of Endelman-
`895
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The ’644 patent relates to a height adjustable desk. (Ex. 1001 at 1:24-26.)
`
`In general, the ’644 patent describes a platform with adjustable heights that sits on
`
`top of an existing desk, so as to provide a user with variable desk heights to
`
`facilitate sitting, standing, and intermediate positions. (Id. at Abstract.)
`
`As shown below in § VI, the technology of the Challenged Claims of the
`
`’644 patent is basic and generic mechanical technology that was previously
`
`disclosed by the prior art described in this Petition.
`
`1 Petitioner notes that for both Grounds 1 and 2, claim 33 is broader than claim 21
`
`and thus claims 33-36 are rendered obvious whether or not obvious modifications
`
`based on Diffrient-466 and/or Huang-251 are made; to simplify the Board’s
`
`review, the analyses for these claims are provided within Grounds 1 and 2.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`The prosecution history of the ’644 Patent
`
`A.
`The application that matured into the ’644 patent was filed on February 3,
`
`2016, and claims priority as a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`14/714,682, filed on May 18, 2015.
`
`On its face, the ’644 patent also claims priority through continuation-in-part
`
`application No. 14/714,682 to U.S. Patent Application No. 14/183,052, filed on
`
`February 18, 2014, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`14/013,285, filed on August 29, 2013, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 13/642,651, filed on July 30, 2012. The ’644 patent also
`
`claims priority to Provisional Patent App. No. 61/651,101, filed on May 24, 2012.
`
`The ’644 patent is subject to the first-to-file provisions of the America Invents Act
`
`(see Ex. 1002 at 82), and the earliest possible priority date for the ’644 patent is
`
`May 24, 2012.2
`
`
`2 Petitioner further notes that many of the Challenged Claims are not entitled to a
`
`priority date earlier than at least August 29, 2013, because they recite matter that
`
`was added for the first time in the continuation-in-part filed on that date, including
`
`for example the keyboard tray. However, this distinction is not pertinent to the
`
`instant Petition, where all of the prior art relied upon predates May 24, 2012 by
`
`more than two years.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`The Chouinard-518 (Ex. 1004), Diffrient-466 (Ex. 1005), and Gannett-515
`
`(Ex. 1006) references are cited on the face of the ’644 patent, but were not
`
`otherwise referenced during prosecution. The additional prior art references in this
`
`Petition, Leather-672 (Ex. 1006), Huang-251 (Ex. 1007), and Endleman-895 (Ex.
`
`1009), were not identified or cited during prosecution.
`
`The examiner issued one non-final rejection during prosecution of the ’644
`
`patent. The examiner’s prior art rejections were based on combining different
`
`prior art references than those relied upon in this Petition. (Ex. 1002 at 100-111.)
`
`Following the examiner’s rejection, the applicant amended claim 1 and added new
`
`claims, including the claims that issued as the Challenged Claims. (Id. at 575-
`
`593.) The examiner subsequently issued a notice of allowance without further
`
`rejection.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”)
`
`B.
`A POSITA in the field of the ’644 patent at the time of the earliest possible
`
`priority date (May 24, 2012) would have had at least an undergraduate degree in
`
`mechanical engineering, plus 1-3 years of industrial experience in mechanical
`
`design, or equivalent education and experience. (Ex. 1003-Erdman at ¶¶ 18-24.)
`
`C. Claim Construction
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b), the claims of an unexpired patent in a
`
`post grant review are given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`specification.” For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner requests that each of the
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`various claim terms be given their broadest reasonable plain meaning to one of
`
`ordinary skill, and Petitioner does not propose any specific claim constructions for
`
`the terms in the Challenged Claims. Petitioner reserves its right to propose specific
`
`claim constructions in the related litigation, which may be more narrow than the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation under the Phillips standard that applies to that
`
`proceeding.
`
`Indeed, for the Challenged Claims, Petitioner interprets the broadest
`
`reasonable construction consistent with the purported plain meaning that the Patent
`
`Owner is advancing in the related litigation. For example, the Challenged Claims
`
`require “arms coupling the upper platform to the base.” The only showing of such
`
`arms in the patent are parallel linkages that lift and lower the adjustable desk in an
`
`arcing motion. Yet, Patent Owner argues that any configuration of arms satisfies
`
`this limitation. As a result, for the purposes of this petition, Petitioner adopts that
`
`understanding as the broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`Likewise, the Challenged Claims require a “locking mechanism.” Under
`
`Phillips and prevailing means-plus-function precedent, Petitioner believes this term
`
`should be constrained to the particular structure disclosed in the patent figures
`
`because it is a means-plus-function term. Patent Owner argues that any
`
`combination of the claimed elements allowing a desk to be adjusted to various
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`heights satisfies this claim element. For this petition, Petitioner is willing to adopt
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`that understanding as the broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`D. The Challenged Claims
`Claims 21-23, 25, and 33-36 constitute the Challenged Claims.
`
`E. Overview of Prior Art
` Overview of Chouinard-518 [Ex. 1004-Chouinard]
`1.
`Chouinard-518 discloses an adjustable desk that can be raised and lowered
`
`to accommodate a user’s sitting, standing, and crouching positions:
`
`“This invention relates to stands for computers and more particularly
`to an adjustable stand which closes for compact storage and which
`opens to support a monitor and keyboard of a computer. The stand
`supports the monitor and keyboard at various levels for use by an
`operator who is seated, standing or crouching.” (Ex. 1004-
`Chouinard at 1:10-15.)
`
`The basic components of the adjustable desk platform are shown in FIGS. 1 & 3:
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`The adjustable desk is raised and lowered using an electric lift system (operated
`
`using switch (66)) to raise and lower the desk using an x-lift/lock system.
`
` Overview of Diffrient-466 [Ex. 1005-Diffrient]
`2.
`Diffrient-466 discloses an adjustable keyboard support that is suspended by
`
`its lateral edges beneath a desk. This keyboard support is illustrated in FIG. 1:
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`The keyboard tray is suspended by its left and right sides. The rear of the keyboard
`
`tray is also more narrow than its front.
`
` Overview of Leather-672 [Ex. 1006-Leather]
`3.
`Leather-672 discloses a foldable stand for supporting objects. Like
`
`Chouinard-518, the adjustable stand is raised and lowered using an x-lift/lock
`
`system, as seen in FIGS. 1-2:
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`Unlike Chouinard-518, the adjustable stand locks in place using a mechanical
`
`locking mechanism comprising biased locking pins with user-operable handles.
`
`Leather-672 explains this operation as follows:
`
`“As scissor mechanism 24 is unfolded from its lower storage position
`of FIG. 1 to its raised position of FIG. 2, slide members 52 and 54
`slide toward the front (to the left in FIG. 1) to the position of FIG. 2
`where retractable spring loaded locking pins 64 and 66 enter side
`holes 68 in members 14 and 16 to lock stand 10 in its raised
`operating position.” (Ex. 1006-Leather at 2:39-45 (emphasis added);
`see also id. at 3:3-7.)
`
` Overview of Huang-251 [Ex. 1007-Huang]
`4.
`Huang-251 relates to an adjustable desk, and in particular an adjustable desk
`
`that is raised and lowered using a handle linkage mechanism for adjusting a desk.
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`The mechanism uses a handle, with a linkage connecting the handle to a locking
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`mechanism for raising and lowering the table using an x-lift:
`
`
`
`The annotated figure above shows that the handle is actuated to raise and lower a
`
`desk via a linkage connected to the locking mechanism. Huang further explains
`
`this operation in the specification. (Ex. 1007-Huang at 7-9.)
`
` Overview of Gannett-515 [Ex. 1008-Gannett]
`5.
`Gannett-515 discloses an adjustable table that can be raised and lowered
`
`using parallel arms. As Gannett-515 explains:
`
`“This invention relates to elevating offices stands and has particular
`relation to an adjustable table structure suitable for supporting loose
`leaf ledgers, file boxes and like articles, at whatever height is most
`convenient for the user.” (Ex. 1008-Gannett at 1:1-5.)
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`An embodiment of the adjustable table disclosed in Gannett-515, at two different
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`heights, is illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2:
`
`
`
`FIGS. 1-2 show a platform surface (11) that can be raised and lowered as desired.
`
`Gannett-515 further explains that a knob on the side of the adjustable platform can
`
`be tightened to lock the platform at a particular height. (Id. at 4:6-26.) The knob,
`
`when not tightened in a locking position, slides in an arcuate slot as the desk is
`
`raised and lowered by a user. This is illustrated in FIG. 3:
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`
` Overview of Endelman-895 [Ex. 1009-Endelman]
`6.
`Endelman-895 discloses a locking mechanism used in an exercise device.
`
`Users operate handles on either side to make height adjustments. The locking
`
`mechanism features holes along an arc, a handle, and pins that are biased into
`
`locked positions in those holes. This locking mechanism is illustrated in FIGS. 20
`
`and 22, respectively:
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`As is apparent from FIG. 22, a user operates the handle of the operating
`
`mechanism to release a pin from a locked position in a hole (170).
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`A. GROUND 1: Chouinard-518 modified per Diffrient-466, Leather-
`672, and Huang-251 renders obvious Claims 21-23, 25, and 33-36
`
`1.
`For Ground 1, the prior art consists of Chouinard-518, Diffrient-466,
`
`The scope and content of the prior art
`
`Leather-672, and Huang-251. All four references are patents:
`
` Chouinard-518 issued on March 16, 2010;
`
` Diffrient-466 issued on February 13, 1996;
`
` Leather-672 issued on November 6, 1990;
`
` Huang-251, which issued on September 1, 2004.3
`
`As noted above, no claims in the ’644 patent are entitled to an effective filing date
`
`that is earlier than May 24, 2012. Thus, all four references addressed in this
`
`Ground are prior art to the ’644 patent.
`
`Chouinard-518 modified per Diffrient-466, Leather-672, and Huang-251
`
`renders every Challenged Claim obvious for the reasons described below.
`
`
`3 Ex. 1007 is a certified translation of the Huang-251 patent. The certification is
`
`also attached to this Petition as Ex. 1011. The original Chinese patent is attached
`
`as Ex. 1015.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`Rationale for Combining Prior Art
`
`
`2.
`For Ground 1, the analysis for each of the limitations of the Challenged
`
`Claims below relies on Chouinard-518 modified per Diffrient-466, Leather-672,
`
`and Huang-251.
`
`Chouinard-518 provides an adjustable desk platform that meets nearly every
`
`limitation of the Challenged Claims, and includes a keyboard tray and a locking
`
`mechanism. The differences between Chouinard-518 and the Challenged Claims
`
`are specifics relating to the keyboard tray and the locking mechanism.
`
`With respect to the keyboard tray, Chouinard-518 discloses a keyboard tray
`
`that is mounted to the adjustable desk at its rear edge rather than lateral edges, and
`
`which is generally a rectangular shape:
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`Replacing this rear-mounted, rectangular keyboard with the side-mounted, t-
`
`shaped keyboard of Diffrient-466 would have been a simple substitution for a
`
`POSITA and would have produced a predictable result: the adjustable desk
`
`platform of Chouinard-518 with the keyboard tray from Diffrient-466 mounted on
`
`the desk platform using side brackets as shown in Diffrient-466. (Ex. 1003-
`
`Erdman at ¶¶ 49-52.) As Diffrient-466 illustrates, mounting a keyboard tray from
`
`its lateral edges underneath a desk by using brackets to connect the desktop with
`
`the lateral edges of the keyboard tray was a predictable and conventional way of
`
`mounting a keyboard tray on a desk. (Id. at ¶¶ 52-54.)
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1005-Diffrient at FIG. 1; see also id. at FIGS. 2, 5 (illustrating support
`
`brackets); Ex. 1003-Erdman at ¶¶ 49-54.) Implementing this simple substitution
`
`would require nothing more than using simple mechanical components operating
`
`in accordance with their known functions. (Ex. 1003-Erdman at ¶ 53.) The shape
`
`of a keyboard tray (t-shaped vs. rectangular), and the way of attaching it to a desk
`
`(brackets attached at the sides vs. brackets attached to the rear), were well-known
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`design options. (Id.) Furthermore, a POSITA would have had good reason to
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`make this simple substitution, as using the keyboard tray illustrated in Diffrient-
`
`466 would allow a POSITA to provide more usable desktop surface area within the
`
`reach of a user while still providing an ergonomically-located keyboard tray, for
`
`example because of the arms of the desk that extend on either side of the keyboard
`
`tray shown in Diffrient-466. (Id. at 54.)
`
`With respect to the locking mechanism, Chouinard-518 uses an electric lift
`
`system to raise and lower an adjustable desk to any desired position and then lock
`
`it in place. (See, e.g., Ex. 1004-Chouinard at FIGS. 1-2 & 4-5; 1:10-15.)
`
`Replacing this electric lift/lock system with a mechanical lift/lock system would
`
`have been a simple substitution for a POSITA. (Ex. 1003-Erdman at ¶¶ 55-56.)
`
`Specifically, it would have been simple for a POSITA to use a mechanical x-
`
`lift/lock system, as disclosed in Leather-672, in place of the electric x-lift/lock
`
`system of Chouinard-518, as illustrated in the figure below:
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`(Id. at ¶¶ 57-58.) This substitution would have produced a predictable result: the
`
`adjustable desk of Chouinard-518, with the mechanical x-lift/lock system of
`
`Leather-672. Implementing this simple substitution would require nothing more
`
`than using simple mechanical components operating in accordance with their
`
`known functions. (Id. at ¶¶ 59-60.) The use of a mechanical x-lift/lock system
`
`instead of an electric x-lift/lock system was a well-known design option. (Id. at ¶
`
`60.) Furthermore, a POSITA would have had good reasons for making this simple
`
`substitution. For example, a POSITA would have understood that mechanical
`
`locking system using pins/holes as shown in Leather-672 is both strong and simple
`
`to manufacture, and would produce a more stable adjustable desk in a more cost-
`
`effective manner. (Id. at ¶ 61.) As another example, a POSITA would have
`21
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`understood that portability would be an important feature for some adjustable desk
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`users. (Id. at ¶ 62.) By substituting a mechanical lift/lock system for the electric
`
`lift/lock system in Chouinard-518, the weight (associated with the electric drive,
`
`transformer, and the like) would be reduced, which would enhance portability. (Id.
`
`at ¶ 62.) In addition, a POSITA would have known that many users (e.g., laptop
`
`users) would prefer to use an adjustable desk in multiple locations, such that the
`
`need to find a nearby power outlet for plugging in an electric desk would be an
`
`undesirable hassle. (Id. at ¶ 63.) This is particularly true of an adjustable desk that
`
`is adapted to sit on top of an existing desk. (Id.)
`
`Finally, with respect to using the handle linkage of Huang-251, a POSITA
`
`would have understood that there were many variations of known handles that
`
`could be used to lock and unlock the mechanical pin/hole locking mechanism
`
`shown in Leather-672. (Id. at ¶ 64.) Leather-672 discloses a system using handles
`
`that are directly connected to biased locking pins. (Ex. 1006-Leather at FIG. 3.)
`
`As Huang-251 shows, the use of a handle linked to a locking mechanism, such as
`
`biased locking pins, was known to those of ordinary skill. (Ex. 1007-Huang at 7-9;
`
`FIG. 1; Ex. 1003-Erdman at ¶ 65.) For example, instead of using a simple handle
`
`directly connected to a pin, Huang-251 discloses a handle linked to pins, which is
`
`actuated to lock/unlock the desk:
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1007-Huang at FIG. 1.) It would have been simple for a POSITA to substitute
`
`the handle linkage shown in Huang-251 for the pin-based handle disclosed in
`
`Leather-672. (Ex. 1003-Erdman at ¶ 66.) Handles of both types were known,
`
`conventional, and predictable mechanical implements used in accordance with
`
`their known functions of actuating a locking a mechanism. (Id.) For example, in
`
`addition to the known handles disclosed in Leather-672 and Huang-251, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,577,452 to Yindra discloses a simple lever-handle linkage and
`
`explains that simple lever linkages have long been well known to those of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. (Ex. 1010-Yindra at FIGS. 5-7; 5:42-6:22; 6:54-59; Ex. 1003-
`
`Erdman at ¶ 66.) Further, a POSITA would have had reason to make this simple
`
`substitution of known components. A POSITA would have recognized that by
`23
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`using a handle linked to a locking mechanism for locking/unlocking the desk, the
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`handle could be placed in a more accessible and ergonomic position, and would
`
`provide mechanical advantage to aid in sliding the locking pin in and out of the
`
`slot. (Ex. 1003-Erdman at ¶ 67.) The handle would be designed to be any useful
`
`length, and would connect to the locking bolt or pin via a linkage, allowing the
`
`handle to be placed closer to the user’s position. (Id.)
`
`Thus, a POSITA would have had reason to combine the prior art relied upon
`
`for Ground 1. For the reasons explained below, this combination of prior art
`
`renders the Challenged Claims obvious.
`
`
`3.
`[CLAIM 21-PREAMBLE] An adjustable desk platform comprising:
`
`Challenged Claims for Ground 1
`
`Chouinard-518 discloses the preamble, whether or not it is a limitation.
`
`Specifically, Chouinard-518 discloses an adjustable desk platform that sits on top
`
`of an existing desk and enables a user to set the platform in multiple positions:
`
`“This invention relates to stands for computers and more particularly
`to an adjustable stand which closes for compact storage and which
`opens to support a monitor and keyboard of a computer. The stand
`supports the monitor and keyboard at various levels for use by an
`operator who is seated, standing or crouching.” (Ex. 1004-Chouinard
`at 1:10-15.)
`
`The basic components of the adjustable desk platform are shown in FIG. 3:
`
`
`
`24
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`FIG. 1 shows the desk platform at a fully-elevated level, while FIG. 2 shows the
`
`platform at a fully-lowered level:
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, Chouinard-518 discloses the preamble of claim 21, whether or not it is
`
`a limitation.
`
`
`
`25
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`[21a] an upper platform defining a substantially planar work surface;
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`FIG. 14 of the ’644 patent generally illustrates the features of claim 21.
`
`Limitation 21a requires a substantially planar upper platform, which is shown as
`
`upper platform (10) and highlighted purple in FIG. 14 below:
`
`
`
`Chouinard-518 discloses this limitation.
`
` Specifically, Chouinard-518
`
`discloses a planar upper work surface, “top wall” (15, highlighted purple):
`
`“A conventional monitor 14 of a computer rests on the top wall 15 of
`the adjustable stand and a platform 16 for keyboard 18 is attached to
`the front wall 20 of the adjustable stand.” (Id. at 2:18-21 (emphasis
`added).)
`
`
`
`26
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`(Id. at FIG. 3.)
`
`
`
`Top wall (15) is a planar upper work surface of the adjustable stand disclosed in
`
`Chouinard-518.
`
`Thus, Chouinard-518 discloses this limitation.
`
`[21b] a base located beneath the upper platform, the base defining a bottom
`that is adapted to sit on an existing desk;
`
`Limitation 21b requires a base below the upper platform, which is shown as
`
`lower platform (20) and highlighted blue in FIG. 14 of the ’644 patent, below:
`
`
`
`27
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`Chouinard-518 discloses this limitation.
`
` Specifically, Chouinard-518
`
`discloses an adjustable stand (10) that sits on an existing surface (12), with a base
`
`(34) that sits on the surface (12):
`
`
`
`“With reference to FIGS. 1 and 2, the adjustable stand of the
`invention, generally 10, is mounted on a table 12.” (Id. at 2:17-18.)
`
`“With reference to FIGS. 4 and 5, the adjustable stand is composed of
`two components, a lower component, generally 10a and an upper
`component, generally 10b. The two components can be opened and
`
`
`
`28
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,554,644
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Post Grant Review
`
`closed by adjusting the elevation of the upper component relative to
`the lower component.” (Id. at 2:24-28; see also FIGS. 4-54.)
`
`
`
`
`FIG. 2 also shows stand (10) sitting on table (12). Lower wall (34, highlighted
`
`blue) sits on an exi