UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT AND TRIAL APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`SATTLER
`TECH CORP.
`Petitioner
`v.
`HUMANCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`________________
`Patent No. D 823,093
`________________
`
`PETITION FOR POST‐GRANT REVIEW
`
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. D 823,093
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`
`
`Table of Authorities
`Table of Exhibits
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………….……...………… Page 1
`II.
`STANDING AND PROCEDURAL STATEMENTS ……………………….………….…… Page 1
`III.
` MANDATORY NOTICES .........................................................................................................Page 2
`A. Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .................................................................Page 2
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .............................................................................Page 2
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) .......................................................Page 2
`D. Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) .....................................................................Page 3
`IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ......................................................................Page 3
`V. ’093 PATENT BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT FIELD ............................................................Page 3
`A. Overview of the ’093 Patent ................................................................................................Page 3
`B. Relevant Field ............................................................................................................................Page 9
`
`1. Tabs ................................................................................................................................Page 10
`
`2. Grommet Spacing .................................................................................................... Page 13
`
`3. Grommet Size ............................................................................................................ Page 15
`
`4. Grommet Raised Edges ......................................................................................... Page 16
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................................................................Page 17
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF INVALIDITY ............................................................................Page 17
`A. Lack of Ornamentality ........................................................................................................Page 18
`1. Applicable Law Regarding Invalidity Regarding Ornamentality …….…. Page 18
`2. The Design of the 093 Patent is Primarily Functional ……………………… Page 19
`3. Claim: The Ornamental Design for a VESA Mount Adapter Bracket, as Shown
`and Described……….......................................................................................................Page 27
`VIII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................,....Page 30
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Table of Authorities 
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 171 ...........................................................................................................1, 3, 17, 18, 19 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208 ........................................................................................................................... 1 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a) .................................................................................................................... 1,7 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.206(a) .................................................................................................................... 1,7 
`37 C.F.R. § 10(b)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...…1 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)....................................................................................................................... 2 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)....................................................................................................................... 2 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)....................................................................................................................... 2 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)....................................................................................................................... 3 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a) ......................................................................................................................... 3 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................................... 17, 18 
`M.P.E.P. § 1504.01(c) .................................................................................................................... 18 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) ..................................................................................................................... 18 
` 
`Cases 
` 
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131,2140‐45 (2016) .......................................... 17, 18 
`High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc., 730 F.3d 1301, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................... 18 
`L.A. Gear Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .............................. 18 
`Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665,679 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................... 19 
`Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10, 14 (1886) .................................................................................... 19 
`Power Controls Corp. v. Hybrinetics, Inc., 806 F.3d 234,238‐39 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ......................... 19 
`Hupp v. Sirojlex of Am., Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .............................................. 19 
`Ethicon Endo‐Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312,1329‐30 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................. 19 
`PGR 2016‐00021 ........................................................................................................................... 18 
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. D 823,093
`Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) Flat
`Display Mounting Interface Standard
`Amazon Page On Which The VESA Mount Adapter
`Bracket Of The ‘093 Patent Is Sold
`First Additional Figure Found On Amazon Page On
`Which The VESA Mount Adapter Bracket Of The ‘093
`Patent Is Sold
`Second Additional Figure Found On Amazon Page On
`Which The VESA Mount Adapter Bracket Of The ‘093
`Patent Is Sold
`Paper From The 17th International Conference On
`Metal Forming
`Gladiator Joe HP Pavilion Monitor VESA Adapter
`VIVO VESA Adapter For HP
`First Additional Figure From VIVO VESA Adapter For HP
`Humancentric Webpage On Which The VESA Mount
`Adapter Bracket Of The ‘093 Patent Is Sold
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Sattler Tech Corp. (“SATTLER” or “Petitioner”) requests post-grant review of the
`claim of U.S. Patent No. D 823,093 (Ex. 1001, “the ’093 Patent”), and cancellation of the
`claim as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 171 for lacking ornamentality. This Petition
`demonstrates that it is more likely than not that the claim of the ’093 Patent is
`unpatentable. 37 C.F.R. § 42.208.
`As an initial matter, the design claimed by the ’093 Patent lacks ornamentality, as it
`was dictated entirely by functional considerations and is primarily functional. The claim of
`the ’093 Patent is therefore not directed at patentable subject matter. It should be
`invalidated on that basis.
`
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to 37 C.F.R. section 42.204(a) that the ’093 Patent is
`available for post-grant review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`requesting post-grant review of the ’093 Patent. This Petition is also filed within nine
`months from the July 17, 2018 issue date of the ’093 Patent.
`Petitioner files this petition in accordance with 37 C.F.R. section 42.206(a),
`and files concurrently with this petition a Power of Attorney and an Exhibit List
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. sections 10(b) and 42.63(e), respectively.
`The required fee is paid via online Deposit Account payment.
`
`
`
`II. STANDING AND PROCEDURAL STATEMENTS
`
`
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`

`

`III. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party‐in‐Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`C. Lead and Back‐Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Petitioner is the real party-in-interest.
`On information and belief, the sole judicial or administrative matters involving the
`’093 Patent is Case No. 2:18-cv-09332-PSG-JPR in the United States District Court, Northern
`District of California.
`Michael L. Greenberg (Reg. No. 47,312)
`GREENBERG & LIEBERMAN, LLC
`1775 Eye Street, NW
`Suite 1150
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 625-7000
`Facsimile: (202) 625-7001
`Michael@APLegal.com
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`2 
`
`Back – Up Counsel
`
`Kenneth E. Keller (SBN 71450)
`William T. Palmer (SBN 312923)
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN
`LLP
`Four Embarcadero Center, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 983-1084
`Facsimile: (415) 983-1200
`kenneth.keller@pillsburylaw.com
` Stevan Lieberman
`GREENBERG & LIEBERMAN, LLC
`1775 Eye Street, NW
`Suite 1150
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 625-7000
`Facsimile: (202) 625-7001
`stevan@aplegal.com
` Robert C.F. Pérez (Reg. No. 39,328)
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`PITTMAN LLP
`1650 Tysons Boulevard, 14th Floor
`McLean, VA 22102
`Telephone: 703-770-7900
`Facsimile: 703-770-7901
`Email: robert.perez@pillsburylaw.com
`
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner consents to service by e-mail at the addresses of counsel provided
`
`D. Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`above.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. section 42.22(a), Petitioner states that the claim of the
`’093 Patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. section 171 for lacking ornamentality.
`Petitioner seeks cancellation of the claim. Petitioner’s full statement of the reasons for the
`relief requested is set forth in detail in Section VII below.
`
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`V. ’093 PATENT BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT FIELD
`
`A. Overview of the ’093 Patent
`
`The ’093 Patent (Ex. 1001) is entitled “VESA MOUNT ADAPTER BRACKET.” It issued
`on July 17, 2018, from Application Ser. No. 29/594,376 (“the ’376 Application”), filed
`February 17, 2017. The ’093 Patent claims what it purports to be an ornamental design for
`a VESA mount adapter bracket represented by the following figure:
`
` 
`
`3 
`
`

`

`
`(Ex. 1001 at 3.) The ’093 Patent contains 5 other figures, FIGS. 2-6, directed at front, back,
`right, top, and bottom perspectives of the claimed design. FIG. 2 is a front view of the
`claimed design:
`
` 
`
`4 
`
`

`

`(Ex. 1001 at 4.) A back view of the claimed design is shown in FIG. 3:
`
`
`
` 
`
`5 
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 5.) FIG. 4 is a right-side view:
`
`
`
`FIG. 3
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 5.) FIG. 4 is a right-side View
`
` 
`
`6 
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`(Ex. 1001 at 6.) FIGS. 5 and 6 are a top view and a bottom view, respectively:
`
` 
`
`7 
`
`

`

`(Ex. 1001 at 7.) As seen in the Figures, there are parts of figures that are shown in broken
`lines. As noted in the patent itself: “The broken lines represent portions of the article and
`form no part of the claimed design.” The only solid-lined parts of the design – or in other
`
`
`
` 
`
`8 
`
`

`

`B. Relevant Field
`
`words, the claimed design -- are essentially a (1) the top and bottom tabs and (2) the
`grommets arranged in diagonal pairs toward the four corners of the plate of the design. As
`demonstrated below, the look of those individual elements—as well as the look of those
`elements together—is dictated by its functionality.
`
`The VESA mount adapter bracket – the “ornamental” design of
`which is claimed in the ’093 Patent – is used in connection with the Video Electronics
`Standards Association (VESA) Flat Display Mounting Interface Standard, Copyright 2006.
`(Ex. 1002). As noted on the first page, “This proposal is to provide industry standard
`mounting interfaces for Flat Displays (FDs) such as flat panel monitors, flat displays and
`flat TVs.” (Ex. 1002 at 1.)
`
`The VESA mount adapter bracket of the ‘093 Patent is designed specifically to fit
`onto the back of certain video monitors so they can attach to VESA mount systems instead
`of a stand that came with the monitors. Specifically, the typical consumer would attach the
`VESA mount adapter bracket of the ‘093 Patent to a monitor in place of a stand that was
`packaged with the monitor.
`As shown in the following figure found on the Amazon page on which the
`VESA mount adapter bracket of the ‘093 Patent is sold,
`https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DNCP7HW , (Ex. 1003 at 3.), the owner of the ‘093
`Patent notes that it works per the VESA mounting system:
`
` 
`
`9 
`
`

`

`
`
`1. Tabs
`
`
`As shown in the following two additional figures found on the Amazon page
`on which the VESA mount adapter bracket of the ‘093 Patent is sold,
`https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DNCP7HW , (Ex. 1004 at 1 and Ex. 1005 at 1.), the top
`tab of the VESA mount adapter bracket of the ‘093 Patent fits atop a lower bulge on the
`back of a video monitor to secure the top tab via screw to the video monitor. There is
`already a hole in the monitor to receive a screw through the top tab of the bracket of the
`‘093 Patent. Note that the bracket of the ‘093 Patent (as shown in the following several
`images) is sandwiched between the monitor and support arm – so that no one is going to
`see much of the bracket of the ‘093 Patent once the bracket of the ‘093 Patent has been
`installed.
`
` 
`
`10 
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` 
`
`11 
`11
`
`

`

`As shown in the following figure found on the Amazon page on which the VESA
`
`mount adapter bracket of the ‘093 Patent is sold,
`https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DNCP7HW , (Ex. 1003 at 6.), the bottom tabs of the
`VESA mount adapter bracket of the ‘093 Patent fit into preexisting slots on the back of a
`video monitor.
`
`
`
` So, in short, the tabs must be positioned and sized as they are – else they won’t fit the
`monitor. The top tab is shaped as minimally as possible to provide support for the bracket
`of the ‘093 Patent.
`
`
` 
`
`12 
`
`

`

`2. Grommet Spacing
`
`As shown in the following figure found on the Amazon page on which the
`VESA mount adapter bracket of the ‘093 Patent is sold,
`https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DNCP7HW , (Ex. 1003 at 3.), grommets of the VESA
`mount adapter bracket of the ‘093 Patent are shown to be VESA standardly-spaced (via the
`manufacturer’s blue notations in the below figure) to fit for mounting at the back of a video
`monitor.
`
`
`
`
`
`As noted on page 18, Section 5.2.1 of the VESA Flat Display Mounting Interface
`(FDMI™) Standard (Ex. 1002 at 28.),:
`
`• Preferred, center-located mounting interface implementation
`o Use 100 mm x 100 mm hole spacing for all displays weighing up to 14 kg
`
`5.2.1 Screw Mounting Interface Dimensions
`
` 
`
`13 
`
`

`

`(30.8 lbs.)
`o See Illustration: Paragraph 5.2.4.1.
`• Alternate, center located mounting interface implementation for smaller displays
`o 75 mm x 75 mm hole spacing may be used for smaller displays, typically
`weighing less than 8 kg (17.6 lbs.)
`o See Illustration: Paragraph 5.2.4.2.
`
`And here are the corresponding illustrations that are referenced per that VESA Standard as
`found on pages 19 and 20, Section 5.2.4.1 and Section 5.2.4.2 of the VESA Flat Display
`Mounting Interface (FDMI™) Standard (Ex. 1002 at 29 and 30.),:
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`14 
`
`

`

`
`
`3. Grommet Size
`
`So, in short, the grommets must be spaced as they are – else they won’t meet VESA
`standards.
`
`Even the grommet size is dictated by VESA Standards, as noted on page 22,
`Section 5.6 of the VESA Flat Display Mounting Interface (FDMI™) Standard (Ex. 1002 at
`32.),:
`
`
`5.6 Part D – Center Located Interface Mounting Pad
`Specifications
`• FD mounting device manufacturers shall provide a standardized interface mounting pad
`as follows:
`Interface Mounting Pad
`Specifications
`100 mm x 100 mm Screw
`Mounting Pattern
`75 mm x 75 mm Screw
`Mounting Pattern
`Hole spacing 100 mm x 100 mm (3.937”) 75 mm x 75 mm (2.953”)
`Hole spacing tolerances +/- .25 mm (.010”) +/- .25 mm (.010”)
`
` 
`
`15 
`
`

`

`4. Grommet Raised Edges
`
`Pad size 115 mm x 115 mm (4.527”),
`6 mm R (4)
`90 mm x 90 mm (3.543”),
`6 mm R (4)
`Flat mounting area required 117 mm x 117 mm (4.606”),
`0 – 7 mm R (4)
`92 mm x 92 mm (3.622”),
`0 – 7 mm R (4)
`Pad thickness 2.6 mm or 12 GA (0.102”-0.105”) 2.6 mm or 12 GA (0.102”-0.105”)
`Hole size in pad (4 ea.) 5 mm ø (0.197"ø) 5 mm ø (0.197"ø)
`Pad material Steel * Steel *
`
`Mounting screws (4 ea.) 4 mm ø, .7 pitch x 10 mm long ** 4 mm ø, .7 pitch x 10 mm long **
`
`So, in short, the grommets must be standardly-sized -- else they won’t conform to
`VESA standards.
`
`Having raised edges for grommets is known to increase the strength of the
`sheet to which the grommets are attached. The bracket of the ‘093 Patent has raised
`grommets, just as is described in the paper found at
`https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S2351978918309818?token=186A3C95214FB
`D7FFAF2696FF0C729BA9898C083389382871689FDD15BF37C4AF2430D508B0F199C10
`3805B73576DCF5 entitled, “Thickened holes edge including compressed rollover for
`improving tensile fatigue strength of thick sheet.” In particular, that paper, from the 17th
`International Conference on Metal Forming, Metal Forming 2018, 16-19 September 2018,
`Toyohashi, Japan, states in the second paragraph on page 5 of the 7 page PDF (or the page
`that is numbered 616 in the publication), (Ex. 1006 at 5.):
`
`“For the purpose of improving fatigue strength of the steel sheet, the edge of the
`hole was thicken. Thus the fatigue strength was improved as compared to the normal
`piercing hole without thickening. …The result shows that the punch holes including
`
` 
`
`16 
`
`

`

`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`thickening with compressed rollover at the holes edge of thick steel sheet are effective in
`improving tensile fatigue strengths.”
`
`So to support heavy monitors to which the bracket of the ‘093 Patent attaches, the
`grommets have raised edges as reinforcement so the sheet to which the grommets are
`attached will not break under heavy monitor weight.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. section 42.100(b), the challenged claim “shall be
`given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent
`in which it appears.” See also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271,
`1278-83 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`The language of the challenged claim does not need to be construed for
`purposes of the invalidity ground set forth in this petition. The claim language
`should therefore be given its plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`The claim of the ’093 Patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. section 171 for lacking
`ornamentality.
`The claimed design lacks ornamentality, as it is primarily functional.
`The claim of the ’093 Patent is therefore not directed at patentable subject matter,
`and it should therefore be invalidated.
`
`
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF INVALIDITY
`
` 
`
`17 
`
`

`

`A. Lack of Ornamentality
`
`1. Applicable Law Regarding Invalidity for Ornamentality
`
`To be patentable under 35 U.S.C. section 171, a design must be “primarily
`ornamental.” See M.P.E.P. § 1504.01(c). That is, it must have been “created for
`the purpose of ornamenting” and cannot be the result or “merely a by-product” of
`functional or mechanical considerations. Id.
`“Based on this requirement, a design patent can be declared invalid if the
`claimed design is ‘primarily functional’ rather than ‘primarily ornamental,’ i.e., if
`‘the claimed design is ‘dictated by’ the utilitarian purpose of the article.’” High Point Design
`LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc., 730 F.3d 1301, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`(citations omitted).
`“In determining whether a design is primarily functional or primarily
`ornamental the claimed design is viewed in its entirety, for the ultimate question is
`not the functional or decorative aspect of each separate feature, but the overall
`appearance of the article, in determining whether the claimed design is dictated by
`the utilitarian purpose of the article.” See L.A. Gear Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d
`1117, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`As noted in PGR2016-00021, in a post-grant review, "[a] claim in an unexpired
`patent shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which it appears." 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.
`Ct. 2131,2140-45 (2016) (holding that 37 C.F.R. § 42.l00(b) "represents a reasonable
`exercise of the rulemaking authority that Congress delegated to the ... Office"). With regard
`to design patents, it is well-settled that a design is represented better by an illustration
`
` 
`
`18 
`
`

`

`than a description. Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665,679 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`(en banc) (citing Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10, 14 (1886)). The Board found that the
`figures alone provide a complete construction of the challenged claim.
`
`The Board went on to note that under 35 U.S.C. § 171, a design patent may be
`granted only for a "new, original, and ornamental design." "If the patented design is
`primarily functional rather than ornamental, the patent is invalid." Power Controls Corp. v.
`Hybrinetics, Inc., 806 F.3d 234,238-39 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (vacating a preliminary injunction
`"[i]n view of the strong and clear showing of functionality" made by a declarant). However,
`''the fact that the article of manufacture serves a function is a prerequisite of design
`patentability, not a defeat thereof. The function of the article itself must not be confused
`with 'functionality' of the design of the article." Hupp v. Sirojlex of Am., Inc., 122 F.3d 1456,
`1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The inquiry into whether a claimed design is primarily functional
`should begin by assessing the availability of alternative designs-"an important-if not
`dispositive factor in evaluating the legal functionality of a claimed design." Ethicon Endo‐
`Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312,1329-30 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Further, a proper
`inquiry assesses "the overall appearance of the article-the claimed design viewed in its
`entirety," "not the functionality of elements of the claimed design viewed in isolation." Id. at
`1329 (emphasis added).
`
`
`2. The Design of the ‘093 Patent is Primarily Functional
`
`In the present case, the fact that the VESA standards dictate the claimed design
`
`of the ‘093 Patent have been shown above in the “Relevant Field” Section. And the
`
`raised grommets of the claimed design of the ‘093 Patent acting to functionally
`
` 
`
`19 
`
`

`

`reinforce has been shown above. In addition, assessing the availability of alternative
`
`designs to ascertain whether the claimed design of the ‘093 Patent is primarily
`
`functional shows that there are a variety of brackets to perform the same function as
`
`the bracket protected by the ‘093 Patent ‐‐ and they all have the same design or
`
`appearance as the black‐lined portions of the figures of the ‘093 Patent.
`This is because the black-lined portions of the figures of the ‘093 Patent are
`necessary for the bracket to function. The black-lined portions of the figures of the ‘093
`Patent are not anything but the functional requirements that are common to similarly
`marketed brackets for the same function – this is because to function, the bracket of
`claimed design of the ‘093 Patent must have tabs and grommets that meet VESA standards
`and are sized and positioned for a specific line of flat panel displays.
`
`As one example showing that there is not any availability of alternative designs
`because the design is dictated by the bracket’s function, Gladiator Joe makes an HP Pavilion
`Monitor VESA Adapter for CVB100 Kit Hp 25xw 25cw 27xw 27cw that is identical, but for
`raised grommet edges, to the bracket protected by the ‘093 Patent. See
`https://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-Pavilion-Monitor-VESA-Adapter-for-CVB100-Kit-Hp-
`25xw-25cw-27xw-
`27cw/191976160276?epid=5016453995&hash=item2cb2abbc14:g:H5AAAOSw8S9a0K15:
`rk:1:pf:0 (Ex. 1007 at 1.) The tabs and the grommets are the same as those of the bracket
`of the ‘093 Patent, as shown in the below figures, the Gladiator Joe product shown first, and
`the bracket of the ‘093 Patent shown second:
`
` 
`
`20 
`
`

`

`
`
`As a second example showing that there is not any availability of alternative designs
`because the design is dictated by the bracket’s function, VIVO makes a VESA Adapter for HP
`27xw, 25xw, 24xw, 23xw, 22xw, 22cwa, 27cw, 25cw, 23cw, 22cw that is identical to the
`bracket protected by the ‘093 Patent, but for raised grommet edges. See
`https://www.ebay.com/itm/VESA-Adapter-for-HP-27xw-25xw-24xw-23xw-22xw-22cwa-
`27cw-25cw-23cw-
`22cw/362116029052?hash=item544fcc1a7c:g:1uYAAOSwZW5aAdjf:sc:USPSPriority!9458
`7!US!-1:rk:3:pf:0 (Ex. 1008 at 1.) The tabs and the grommets are the same as those of the
`bracket of the ‘093 Patent, as shown in the below figures, the VIVO product shown first, and
`the bracket of the ‘093 Patent shown second:
`
`
` 
`
`21 
`
`

`

`
`Telling is that the VIVO product also has the below side and back side views showing the
`exact spacing/ positioning of grommets as the bracket of the ‘093 Patent matching the
`VESA standard measurements (both views below are of the VIVO product) (Ex. 1009 at 1.):
`
` 
`
`22 
`
`

`

`And, from the owner of the ‘093 Patent, here is the bracket of the ‘093 Patent with VESA
`standard grommets distances, as shown at
`https://www.humancentric.com/products/vesa-adapter-bracket-for-hp-pavilion-cw-xw-
`series-monitors (Ex. 1010 at 1.):
`
`
`
` 
`
`23 
`
`

`

`
`
`Even the length of the tabs is roughly the same because they must interlock into slots on an
`HP monitor. Moreover, even the below product description, appearing next to the above
`image at the following link, by the owner of the ‘093 Patent, notes the VESA standards that
`dictate the design of the ‘093 Patent -- https://www.humancentric.com/products/vesa-
`adapter-bracket-for-hp-pavilion-cw-xw-series-monitors (Ex. 1010 at 1.):
`
`
` 
`
`24 
`
`

`

`
`
`PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
`
`Bought an HP Pavilion monitor and disappointed that you can't VESA mount it? Unable to
`find the HP L6V75AA (CVB100 VESA Mount Adapter Kit)? This bracket enables you to
`mount select HP Pavilion monitors to a desk mount, articulating arm, or any other VESA
`mounting system.
`Fits ONLY the following HP Monitors:
` Pavilion 22cw
` Pavilion 22cwa
` Pavilion 22xw
` Pavilion 23cw
` Pavilion 23xw
` Pavilion 24cw
` Pavilion 24xw
` Pavilion 25cw
` Pavilion 25xw
` Pavilion 27cw
` Pavilion 27xw
`**DOES NOT FIT ANY OTHER BRANDS OR MODELS. Check to make sure your monitor is
`listed before ordering! **
`Included are nuts to secure the bracket to the VESA mount, and the only tool required for
`installation is a screwdriver that fits the screws that came with your VESA mount.
`A VESA mount can be used to save desk space or provide additional viewing flexibility by
`mounting the monitor on a stand, movable arm, multiple-monitor mount, or a wall mount.
`
`Thus, the overall appearance of the bracket of the ‘093 Patent is the same as
`similarly marketed brackets because the overall appearance of the bracket of the ‘093
`Patent is not a design choice – but rather a functional requirement dictated by needing to
`fit a monitor and meeting VESA standards -- and needing to fit (as the owner of the ‘093
`Patent notes above) VESA mounts. The grommets of the ‘093 Patent are required by VESA
`standards as aforementioned; and the tabs of the ‘093 Patent are required to be angled at
`
`Fits Standard VESA Hole Patterns: 75 mm x 75 mm, 100 mm x 100 mm
`
` 
`
`25 
`
`

`

`roughly ninety degrees to fit onto (in the case of the top tab) and into (in the case of the
`bottom tabs) the back of the flat panel which the bracket of the ‘093 Patent supports.
`Moreover, the bottom tabs are required to be shaped in such a way in order to interlock
`with the slots in the back of the flat panel into which the bracket of the ‘093 Patent
`supports. As noted previously, having raised edges for grommets is known to increase the
`strength of the sheet to which the grommets are attached.
`Applying the Board’s guidance as noted above, the inquiry into whether the claimed
`design of the ‘093 Patent is primarily functional should begin by assessing the availability
`of alternative designs – an important – if not dispositive factor in evaluating the legal
`functionality of a claimed design. In the case of the claimed design of the ‘093 Patent, there
`is no availability of alternative designs because claimed design of the ‘093 is dictated by
`VESA standards and needing to fit on and into monitors made by Hewlett Packard. Further,
`as the Board noted above, a proper inquiry assesses "the overall appearance of the article-
`the claimed design viewed in its entirety," "not the functionality of elements of the claimed
`design viewed in isolation." And when the claimed design of the ‘093 Patent is viewed in its
`entirety, there does not appear to be anything that is not dictated VESA standards and the
`Hewlett Packard monitors that it is designed to fit. Even the raised edges for the grommets
`is known to increase the strength of sheet to which the grommets are attached.
`In short, if the claimed design of the ‘093 Patent did not have the overall appearance
`that it does, then the claimed design of the ‘093 Patent would not function. The elements
`
`of the claimed design of the ‘093 Patent – viewed in isolation as well as together –
`
`must appear as they do so that the bracket of the ‘093 Patent can function. Without
`
`the elements of the claimed design of the ‘093 Patent – viewed in isolation as well as
`
` 
`
`26 
`
`

`

`3. Claim: “The ornamental design for a VESA mount adapter bracket, as
`
`shown and described.”
`
`together – the claimed design of the ‘093 Patent would not fit the very standard
`
`monitors that it must fit to function.
`
`Thus, it is more likely than not that Petitioner should prevail on a ground of
`unpatentability with respect to the claim of the ‘093 Patent.
`
`
`The claim of the ’093 Patent should be invalidated since the claimed design
`is primarily functional instead of being primarily ornamental. The design as a
`whole is dictated by function, not by ornamentation. For instance, there is nothing
`in the claimed design indicating that a design choice was made for the purpose of
`ornamenting. In fact, the obverse is true: each of the design choices, taken individually --
`and as a whole -- was expressly dictated by functional considerations.
`As noted before, the claimed design is the only solid-lined parts of the design, which
`are (1) the top and bottom tabs and (2) the grommets arranged in diagonal pairs toward
`the four corners of the plate. This can easily be seen in the following figure from US D
`823,093 (Ex. 1001 at 3.):
`
` 
`
`27 
`
`

`

`
`There are several prominent design features in US D 823,093:
`(1) US D 823,093 shows a top tab and two bottom tabs relatively perpendicular to
`the backplate. This is not a design choice for ornamental purposes, but purely
`functional as the top tab must be positioned in such a way to fit and screw onto a
`bump in the specific flat panels to which it can attach. And this is not a design
`choice for ornamental purposes, but purely functional, as the bottom tabs must
`
`28 
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`be positioned is such a way to fit into pre-existing slots in the specific flat panels
`to which it can attach.
`(2) US D 823,093 shows grommets in a spaced pattern that is also not a design
`choice for ornamental purposes, but purely functional as the grommets must be
`positioned in such a way to match VESA standards for flat panel mounts. As
`aforementioned, the grommet spacing / positioning meets a VESA standard that
`is not a design choice. And the size of the grommets also meets a VESA standard
`that is not a design choice. Even the raised grommet edges are known, in the
`metal forming industry, to increase the strength of the sheet to which the
`grommets are attached.
`The look of those individual elements—as well as the look of the entire claimed
`design – is dictated by its functionality. The tabs and grommets are disposed where they
`are and positioned where they are because of functional – not ornamental – considerations.
`Nothing about the overall shape or the design and placement of individual elements, for
`instance, can ser