Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 52
`
`Date: March 11, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SIMPSON STRONG-TIE COMPANY INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COLUMBIA INSURANCE COMPANY,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`PGR2019-00063
`Patent 10,316,510 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`Granting-in-Part Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend
`35 U.S.C. § 328(a)
`
`
`
`

`

`II.
`
`PGR2019-00063
`Patent 10,316,510 B2
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ...................... 1
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
`A.
`Case Posture ............................................................................... 1
`B.
`Related Proceeding ..................................................................... 2
`C.
`The ’510 Patent .......................................................................... 3
`D.
`Illustrative Claim ........................................................................ 7
`E.
`Applied References .................................................................... 8
`F.
`Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability........................................ 8
`ANALYSIS: ORIGINAL CLAIMS 1–20 ........................................... 9
`A. Applicable Law .......................................................................... 9
`1. Written Description ........................................................ 10
`2.
`Indefiniteness ................................................................. 11
`3.
`Anticipation.................................................................... 12
`4.
`Obviousness ................................................................... 12
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................ 14
`B.
`Claim Construction .................................................................. 15
`C.
`D. Unpatentability of Claims 1–19 Based on Lack of
`Written Description .................................................................. 16
`Unpatentability of Claim 20 Based on Indefiniteness ............. 23
`E.
`Anticipation of Claims 1–19 by Brekke ’370 .......................... 28
`F.
`G. Obviousness of Claims 1–20 Over the Combination of
`Gilb ’155, Bundy, and Allan .................................................... 30
`1.
`Overview of Gilb ’155 ................................................... 31
`2.
`Overview of Bundy ........................................................ 34
`3.
`Independent Claim 1 ...................................................... 35
`a)
`“A hanger for connecting a structural
`component
`to a wall adapted
`to have
`
` i
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2019-00063
`Patent 10,316,510 B2
`
`
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`the hanger
`thereon,
`sheathing mounted
`comprising:” ........................................................ 35
`“a channel-shaped portion configured to
`receive
`the
`structural component,
`the
`channel-shaped portion including a base
`sized and shaped for receiving an end of the
`structural component thereon to support the
`structural component, and side panels
`extending upward from the base generally
`perpendicular to the base, the side panels
`having rearward edges lying in a rear edge
`plane;” .................................................................. 37
`“an extension portion extending from the
`channel-shaped portion and configured to
`extend through the sheathing; and” ..................... 39
`(1) Claim Construction: “configured to
`extend through the sheathing” ................... 41
`(2) Disclosure of Gilb ’155 ............................. 52
`“a connection portion including a top flange
`configured for attachment to a top surface of
`a top plate of the wall, the connection portion
`further including a back flange extending
`from an edge of the top flange in a direction
`toward a plane of the base of the channel-
`shaped portion, the back flange having a front
`surface lying in a back flange plane,” ................. 55
`“the extension portion spacing the side panels
`from the back flange plane by a distance sized
`large enough to permit two layers of 5/8 inch
`thick sheathing to be received between the
`rear edge plane and the back flange plane, but
`too small to permit three layers of 5/8 inch
`thick sheathing to be received between the
`rear edge plane and the back flange plane.” ........ 56
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`PGR2019-00063
`Patent 10,316,510 B2
`
`
`
`4.
`5.
`
`(1)
`Spacing Dimension Limitation ................. 57
`(2) Reason to Combine Gilb ’155 and
`Bundy ........................................................ 57
`(3) Operable for Intended Purpose ................. 60
`(4) Allan .......................................................... 63
`Objective Evidence of Nonobviousness .............. 63
`f)
`Conclusion ........................................................... 68
`g)
`Independent Claims 13 and 20 ...................................... 68
`Dependent Claims 2–12 and 14–19 ............................... 70
`a)
`Claims 2 and 14 ................................................... 70
`b)
`Claim 3 ................................................................ 71
`c)
`Claim 4 ................................................................ 71
`d)
`Claims 5 and 18 ................................................... 72
`e)
`Claim 6 ................................................................ 73
`f)
`Claim 7 ................................................................ 73
`g)
`Claim 8 ................................................................ 74
`h)
`Claims 9 and 15 ................................................... 74
`i)
`Claims 10 and 16 ................................................. 75
`j)
`Claims 11 and 17 ................................................. 76
`k)
`Claims 12 and 19 ................................................. 76
`Summary ........................................................................ 80
`6.
`H. Obviousness of Claims 12 and 19 Over the Combination
`of Gilb ’155, Bundy, Allan, and Gilb ’942 .............................. 80
`Summary of Analysis of Original Claims 1–20 ....................... 81
`I.
`III. REVISED CONTINGENT MOTION TO AMEND ......................... 83
`A. Applicable Law ........................................................................ 83
`B.
`Proposed Substitute Claims ..................................................... 85
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`PGR2019-00063
`Patent 10,316,510 B2
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`C.
`
`Statutory and Regulatory Requirements .................................. 88
`1.
`Reasonable Number of Claims (35 U.S.C.
`§ 326(d)(1)(B); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(3)) .................... 88
`Respond to a Ground of Unpatentability (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.221(a)(2)(i)) ........................................................... 88
`Scope of Amended Claims (35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3);
`37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii)) ......................................... 89
`New Matter or Written Description (35 U.S.C.
`§ 326(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(b)(1)) .......................... 89
`a)
`Citations
`to Show Written Description
`Support ................................................................. 90
`b) Written Description Support for “Rigidly
`Fixed” and Negative Spacing Limitation in
`Claims 21–39 ....................................................... 94
`(1) Negative Spacing Limitation .................... 95
`(2)
`“Rigidly Fixed” Limitation ....................... 95
`Conclusion ................................................................... 102
`5.
`D. Unpatentability of Proposed Substitute Claims 21–40 as
`Indefinite ................................................................................ 102
`1.
`“Rigidly Fixed” ............................................................ 103
`2.
`Large Enough Limitation ............................................. 104
`Obviousness of Proposed Substitute Claims 21, 22, 24,
`26–37, 39, and 40 Over the Combination of Tsukamoto,
`Bundy, and Allan ................................................................... 104
`1.
`Structure Disclosed by Tsukamoto .............................. 105
`2. Meaning of “Extending From” .................................... 106
`3.
`“a back flange extending from an edge of the top
`flange in a direction toward a plane of the base of
`the channel-shaped portion” ........................................ 110
`Conclusion ................................................................... 118
`
`E.
`
`4.
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`PGR2019-00063
`Patent 10,316,510 B2
`
`
`
`F.
`
`Obviousness of Proposed Substitute Claim 23 Over the
`Combination of Tsukamoto, Bundy, Allan, and Gilb ’416 ... 118
`G. Obviousness of Proposed Substitute Claims 21–40 Over
`the Combination of Gilb ’155, Bundy, Allan, and Gilb
`’942 ......................................................................................... 119
`1.
`Rigidly Fixed Limitation ............................................. 120
`a)
`Impermissible Hindsight ................................... 120
`b)
`Inoperability for Intended Purpose .................... 124
`Extension Flange Limitation ........................................ 125
`2.
`Conclusion ................................................................... 125
`3.
`H. Obviousness of Proposed Substitute Claims 21–24, 26–
`37, 39 and 40 Over the Combination of Timony and
`Bundy ..................................................................................... 126
`1.
`Structure Disclosed by Timony ................................... 126
`2.
`Rationale For Combining Bundy’s “Top Flange”
`With Timony’s Hanger ................................................ 128
`Conclusion ................................................................... 130
`3.
`Obviousness of Proposed Substitute Claim 23 Over
`Timony, Bundy, and Gilb ’416 .............................................. 131
`Obviousness of Proposed Substitute Claims 32 and 39
`Over Timony, Bundy, and Gilb ’942 ..................................... 131
`Summary of Analysis of Proposed Substitute Claims 21–
`40 ............................................................................................ 132
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................ 134
`V. ORDER ............................................................................................. 135
`
`K.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
` v
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2019-00063
`Patent 10,316,510 B2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Case Posture
`Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`(Paper 2, “Pet.”) to institute a post-grant review of claims 1–20 (“the
`challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,316,510 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’510 patent”). Columbia Insurance Company (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Preliminary Response to the Petition (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”). In addition,
`with prior authorization from the Board, the parties filed supplemental
`briefing concerning the Preliminary Response. Papers 11, 13. We instituted
`a post-grant review of claims 1–20 of the ’510 patent on all grounds of
`unpatentability alleged in the Petition. Paper 14 (“Institution Decision” or
`“Dec.”).
`After institution, Patent Owner filed a Response. Paper 27
`(“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply. Paper 32 (“Pet. Reply”). Patent
`Owner filed a Sur-Reply. Paper 36 (“PO Sur-Reply”). Patent Owner filed a
`Contingent Motion to Amend. Paper 28. Petitioner filed an Opposition to
`the Contingent Motion to Amend. Paper 33. Patent Owner filed a Revised
`Contingent Motion to Amend. Paper 37 (“RMTA”). Petitioner filed an
`Opposition to the RMTA. Paper 40 (“RMTA Opp.”). Patent Owner filed a
`Reply to the RMTA Opposition. Paper 43 (“RMTA Reply”). Petitioner
`filed a Sur-Reply to the RMTA Reply. Paper 48 (“RMTA Sur-Reply”). We
`held a hearing on January 14, 2021, and a transcript of the hearing appears in
`the record. Paper 51 (“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. The evidentiary standard is
`a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 326(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R.
`
` 1
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2019-00063
`Patent 10,316,510 B2
`
`
`§ 42.1(d) (2019). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons discussed below, we determine (1) Petitioner has
`established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 of the
`’510 patent are unpatentable; (2) Patent Owner has not satisfied the statutory
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 326(d) and the procedural requirements of
`37 C.F.R. § 42.221 as to proposed substitute claims 21–39, and therefore, we
`deny Patent Owner’s RMTA as to proposed substitute claims 21–39; and
`(3) Patent Owner has satisfied the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C.
`§ 326(d) and the procedural requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221 as to
`proposed substitute claim 40, and Petitioner has not demonstrated
`unpatentability of this claim by a preponderance of evidence, and therefore,
`we grant Patent Owner’s RMTA as to proposed substitute claim 40.
`
`B. Related Proceeding
`The parties identify the following active matter as related to the
`’510 patent (Pet. 137; Paper 4, 2):
`Columbia Insurance Company et al v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company
`Inc., No. 3-19-cv-04683 (N.D. Cal.) (“Related Litigation”).
`The parties also identify pending U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 16/433,799, filed June 6, 2019, as claiming benefit of the ’510 patent.
`Pet. 137; Paper 4, 2. Although not advised by the parties,1 we note that
`
`
`
` 1
`
` See 37 C.F.R. § 42.11(a) (“Parties and individuals involved in the
`proceeding have a duty of candor and good faith to the Office during the
`course of a proceeding.”).
`
` 2
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2019-00063
`Patent 10,316,510 B2
`
`
`action by the USPTO is suspended on this application at the applicant’s
`request. See Letter of Suspension – Applicant Initiated, mailed Sept. 24,
`2020.
`
`C. The ’510 Patent
`The ’510 patent is titled “Hanger For Fire Separation Wall,” and
`
`issued on June 11, 2019, from U.S. Application No. 16/225,517, filed
`December 19, 2018. Ex. 1001, codes (10), (21), (22), (45), (54). The
`’510 patent claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/922,531,
`filed December 31, 2013. Ex. 1001, code (60).
`
`The ’510 patent generally relates to “a truss hanger for connecting a
`truss to a wall including fire retardant sheathing.” Id. at 1:16–18. Figure 2
`of the ’510 patent is reproduced below.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2019-00063
`Patent 10,316,510 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is a perspective view of a truss hanger.
`Id. at 2:54–55.
`Figure 2 shows truss hanger 26 having three main portions: channel-
`shaped portion 38, extension portion 40, and connection portion 42. Id. at
`4:29–31. Channel-shaped portion 38 is configured to receive floor truss 12
`(not shown), and includes seat or base 44 and a pair of side panels 46
`extending upward from base 44. Id. at 4:31–34. When installed, base 44 is
`generally horizontal, and side panels 46 extend generally vertical from
`base 44. Id. at 4:34–36. Back panel 48 extends from each of side panels 46,
`and each back panel 48 is generally perpendicular to both side panels 46 and
`
` 4
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2019-00063
`Patent 10,316,510 B2
`
`
`base 44. Id. at 4:36–39. When installed, each back panel 48 extends
`generally parallel to interior face 50 of fire retardant sheathing 34 (not
`shown). Id. at 4:39–41.
`Extension portion 40 includes two extension flanges 60 configured to
`extend through fire retardant sheathing 34 (not shown). Id. at 4:63–65.
`Each flange 60 extends from one of back panels 48, and is “positioned in
`opposed, face-to-face relation,” “preferably engag[ing] each other along a
`juncture.” Id. at 4:65–5:1. Back flange 66 extends generally perpendicular
`from each of extension flanges 60, and is oriented generally parallel to back
`panels 48. Id. at 5:1–3.
`Connection portion 42 includes a pair of connector tabs 74 extending
`from back flanges 66. Id. at 6:32–34. Each connector tab 74 extends
`generally perpendicular from one of back flanges 66, and is generally
`horizontal when hanger 26 is installed. Id. at 6:34–37.
`Truss hanger 26 mounts to framing of a wall during construction as
`shown in Figure 10 of the ’510 patent, reproduced below. Id. at 5:27–36.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2019-00063
`Patent 10,316,510 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 10 is a perspective view of wall 28 having fire
`retardant sheathing 34 with a slot cut in the sheathing to
`receive truss hanger 26.
`Id. at 2:54–55. Once installed, a portion of fire retardant sheathing 34
`extends into each sheathing channel 68 and is secured between back
`panels 48 and back flanges 66. Id. at 5:33–36. According to the ’510 patent,
`an exemplary embodiment of fire retardant sheathing 34, as shown in
`Figure 10 for example, is gypsum board, such as two layers of 5/8" gypsum
`board. Id. at 4:13–19.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2019-00063
`Patent 10,316,510 B2
`
`
`According to the ’510 patent, the use of truss hanger 26 allows for the
`
`mounting of joists to fire separation walls with less interruption to the wall’s
`fire retardant sheathing, thus minimizing any reduction in the wall’s fire
`resistant rating. See id. at 1:22–38.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`D.
`The ’510 patent includes 20 claims, all of which are challenged.
`Claims 1, 13, and 20 are independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative and
`reproduced below.
`1. A hanger for connecting a structural component to a wall
`adapted to have sheathing mounted thereon, the hanger
`comprising:
`a channel-shaped portion configured to receive the structural
`component, the channel-shaped portion including a base
`sized and shaped for receiving an end of the structural
`component thereon to support the structural component,
`and side panels extending upward from the base generally
`perpendicular to the base, the side panels having rearward
`edges lying in a rear edge plane;
`an extension portion extending from the channel-shaped
`portion and configured to extend through the sheathing;
`and
`a connection portion including a top flange configured for
`attachment to a top surface of a top plate of the wall, the
`connection portion further including a back flange
`extending from an edge of the top flange in a direction
`toward a plane of the base of the channel-shaped portion,
`the back flange having a front surface lying in a back
`flange plane, the extension portion spacing the side panels
`from the back flange plane by a distance sized large
`enough to permit two layers of 5/8 inch thick sheathing to
`be received between the rear edge plane and the back
`flange plane, but too small to permit three layers of 5/8
`
` 7
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2019-00063
`Patent 10,316,510 B2
`
`
`
`inch thick sheathing to be received between the rear edge
`plane and the back flange plane.
`Ex. 1001, 12:10–36.
`
`E. Applied References
`Petitioner relies upon the following references:
`Brekke, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0184370
`(Ex. 1027, “Brekke ’370”), published July 2, 2015.
`Tsukamoto, Japanese Patent Publication
`No. JPH0314482Y2 (Ex. 1009, “Tsukamoto”), published
`October 16, 1987 (citations herein to Tsukamoto are to the
`certified translation thereof included in Ex. 1009).
`Bundy et al., U.S. Patent No. 9,394,680 (Ex. 1007,
`“Bundy”), filed December 14, 2013 and issued July 19, 2016.
`Allan, U.S. Patent No. 4,827,684 (Ex. 1012, “Allan”),
`issued May 9, 1989.
`Gilb, U.S. Patent No. 4,230,416 (Ex. 1011, “Gilb ’416”),
`issued October 28, 1980.
`Gilb, U.S. Patent No. 4,261,155 (Ex. 1010, “Gilb ’155”),
`issued April 14, 1981.
`Gilb, U.S. Patent No. 4,005,942 (Ex. 1032, “Gilb ’942”),
`issued February 1, 1977.
`Timony, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0155307
`(Ex. 1008, “Timony”), published July 21, 2005.
`Pet. 1–3.
`
`Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`F.
`We instituted post-grant review of claims 1–20 of the ’510 patent on
`the following grounds. Dec. 2–3, 9, 62.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2019-00063
`Patent 10,316,510 B2
`
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`1–19
`20
`1–19
`1–2, 4, 6–17,
`19, 20
`3
`
`1–20
`
`12, 19
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`112(a)
`112(b)
`102
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`Reference(s)
`N/A
`N/A
`Brekke ’370
`Tsukamoto, Bundy,
`Allan
`Tsukamoto, Bundy,
`Allan, Gilb ’416
`Gilb ’155, Bundy,
`Allan
`Gilb ’155, Bundy,
`Allan, Gilb ’942
`Timony, Bundy
`
`103
`
`1–4, 6–17, 19,
`20
`Timony, Bundy, Gilb ’416
`103
`3
`Timony, Bundy, Gilb ’942
`103
`12, 19
`Petitioner relies on the Declarations of W. Andrew Fennell
`(Exs. 1003, 1036, 1039, 1042). Patent Owner relies on the Declarations of
`Reynaud Serrette, Ph.D. (Exs. 2001, 2042, 2044, 2055, 2057).
`
`II. ANALYSIS: ORIGINAL CLAIMS 1–20
`A. Applicable Law
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–20 of the
`’510 patent on the grounds that various claims lack written description, are
`indefinite, or are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of various references including: Brekke ’370,
`Tsukamoto, Bundy, Allan, Gilb ’416, Gilb ’155, Gilb ’942, and Timony.
`To prevail in its challenges to the patentability of the claims, Petitioner must
`
` 9
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2019-00063
`Patent 10,316,510 B2
`
`
`establish unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C.
`§ 326(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). In a post-grant review, the petitioner has the
`burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges
`is unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3)(requiring post-grant review
`petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the
`grounds for the challenge to each claim”); cf. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech.,
`Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[I]t was [Petitioner’s] burden to
`explain to the Board how [the combination of prior art] rendered the
`challenged claims unpatentable.”). This burden never shifts to Patent
`Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d
`1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in
`inter partes review).
`
`1. Written Description
`Under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), a patent specification shall contain a “written
`description” of the invention. The purpose of the written description
`requirement is to “‘ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth
`in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to
`the field of art as described in the patent specification.’” Univ. of Rochester
`v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Reiffin v.
`Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). This requirement
`protects the quid pro quo between inventors and the public, whereby the
`public receives “meaningful disclosure in exchange for being excluded from
`practicing the invention for a limited period of time.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v.
`Gen–Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`PGR2019-00063
`Patent 10,316,510 B2
`
`
`
`To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure must
`reasonably convey to skilled artisans that the inventor possessed the claimed
`invention as of the filing date. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). “One does that by such
`descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that
`fully set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (emphasis added). “The invention is,
`for purposes of the ‘written description’ inquiry, whatever is now claimed.”
`Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Such
`description need not recite the claimed invention in haec verba but must do
`more than merely disclose that which would render the claimed invention
`obvious. Univ. of Rochester, 358 F.3d at 923; Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v.
`Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1566–67 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T–Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306–07 (Fed. Cir.
`2008) (explaining that § 112, ¶ 1 “requires that the written description
`actually or inherently disclose the claim element”).
`
`Indefiniteness
`2.
`Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), a patent specification “shall conclude with
`one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the
`subject matter which the inventor . . . regards as the invention.” This is
`commonly referred to as the definiteness requirement.
`The Board applies in post-grant reviews the same indefiniteness
`standard as used in federal courts and the U.S. International Trade
`Commission under Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898
`(2014), and its progeny. USPTO Memorandum, Approach To Indefiniteness
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`PGR2019-00063
`Patent 10,316,510 B2
`
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 In AIA Post-Grant Proceedings (Jan. 6, 2021).
`Under Nautilus, “[a] patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in
`light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform,
`with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the
`invention.” Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 898–99 (emphasis added). “[A] patent
`must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed, thereby
`apprising the public of what is still open to them,” but the present standard
`recognizes that “absolute precision is unattainable.” Id. at 899 (internal
`quotation marks omitted).
`
`3. Anticipation
`To serve as an anticipatory reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “the
`reference must disclose each and every element of the claimed invention,
`whether it does so explicitly or inherently.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331,
`1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “The identical invention must be shown in as
`complete detail as is contained in the . . . claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki
`Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (emphasis added).
`The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, “but this is not an
`‘ipsissimis verbis’ test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re
`Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Akzo N.V. v. United
`States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 & n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
`
`4. Obviousness
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if “the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`12
`
`

`

`PGR2019-00063
`Patent 10,316,510 B2
`
`
`subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when of record, objective evidence of
`non-obviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Secondary considerations may include the
`following: “commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of
`others, etc.” Id. The totality of the evidence submitted may show that the
`challenged claims would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
`the art. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984). When
`evaluating a combination of teachings, we must also “determine whether
`there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
`claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`The Supreme Court has made clear that we apply “an expansive and
`flexible approach” to the question of obviousness. Id. at 415. Whether a
`patent claiming a combination of prior art elements would have been
`obvious is determined by whether the improvement is more than the
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
`Id. at 417. To reach this conclusion, however, requires more than a mere
`showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each
`separate limitation in a claim under examination. Unigene Labs., Inc. v.
`Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Rather, obviousness
`requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`PGR2019-00063
`Patent 10,316,510 B2
`
`
`the invention would have selected and combined those prior art elements in
`the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed
`invention. Id. “To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner
`cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead
`articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the
`legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`We analyze the challenges presented in the Petition and to the RMTA
`(see section III, infra) in accordance with the above-stated principles.
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time
`of the effective filing date of the ’510 patent, “would have had an education
`background of, or practical experience providing an equivalent to, a
`Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Structural Engineering or a
`related/equivalent field and at least four years of work experience in
`construction connector design/development.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 14).
`Similarly, Patent Owner contends that the skilled artisan “would have
`acquired a body of knowledge gained through formal education, or practical
`experience providing an equivalent to, a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical
`Engineering, Civil/Structural Engineering, or a related/equivalent field, and
`at least four years of work experience in construction connector
`design/development.” PO Resp. 22; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 14.
`Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based
`on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in
`the art. Although slight differences exist in the formulation of such skill
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`PGR2019-00063
`Patent 10,316,510 B2
`
`
`level between the parties, we discern no meaningful differences because
`none of those differences would affect the outcome of our analysis.
`Accordingly, we apply the level of skill set forth in the preceding paragraph,
`which also is consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v.
`Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific
`findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error
`‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for
`testimony is not shown.’”); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir.
`1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err
`in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined
`by the references of record).
`
`C. Claim Construction
`We apply the claim construction standard articulated in Phillips v.
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.200(b). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and
`customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and
`customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the
`invention.” Id. at 1313. “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim
`limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining
`the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution
`history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
`Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d
`at 1312–17). Extrinsic evidence is “less significant than the intrinsic record
`in determining ‘the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips,
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`PGR2019-00063
`Patent 10,316,510 B2
`
`
`415 F.3d at 1317. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed,
`and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs.,
`Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec
`Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017
`(Fed. Cir.