`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 35
`Date: June 8, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`DONG GUAN LEAFY WINDOWARE CO. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ANLI SPRING CO., LTD. and
`HSIEN-TE HUANG,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Before GEORGE R. HOSKINS, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and
`SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Petitioner’s Request on Rehearing of
`Final Written Decision Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(2)
`
`ORDER
`Expunging Petitioner’s Exhibits 1019–1022
`37 C.F.R. § 42.7(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`On April 8, 2021, we entered a Final Written Decision (Paper 33,
`“Decision” or “Dec.”) determining, in part, that Petitioner had not shown
`claims 1 and 3 of the ’547 patent1 are unpatentable by a preponderance of
`the evidence. On May 7, 2021, Petitioner timely filed a Request for
`Rehearing of that determination in the Decision. See Paper 34 (“Petitioner’s
`Request” or “Req. Reh’g”), 1.
`We agree with Petitioner that the Decision misapprehended the
`evidence of record. Therefore, we modify the Decision to correct this error,
`as set forth in an Errata separately entered with the present decision.
`However, even with this correction, we maintain the outcome of the
`Decision. Therefore, Petitioner’s Request is denied.
`Petitioner also filed new evidence with the Request, which Petitioner
`asserts good cause indicates should be considered by the Board. We
`disagree, so we expunge the newly-filed evidence from the record.
`
`II.
`STANDARD FOR REHEARING
`Petitioner, as the requesting party here, has the burden of showing the
`Decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The Request must
`specifically identify all matters Petitioner believes the Board
`misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was
`previously addressed in the proceeding. Id.
`
`
`1 Ex. 1001, U.S. Patent No. 10,174,547 B2.
`
`2
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Whether the Decision Misapprehended the Disclosure in
`Figure 6 of Lin ’943
`Petitioner’s Request asserts the Decision misapprehended the
`disclosure in Figure 6 of Lin ’9432. See Req. Reh’g 1–2, 5–6. For the
`following reasons, we agree.
`The Decision “discern[ed] . . . sensor noise in the two torque curves”
`illustrated in Figure 6 of Lin ’943. Dec. 30–31. “To illustrate the
`significance of this noise in Figure 6 of Lin ’943, we reproduce[d] the
`following excerpt of Figure 6, with our annotations.” Id. at 31.
`
`
`This excerpt of Figure 6 “focuse[d] on the portion that is in dispute—the two
`torque curves between travel lengths 6 and 14—while maintaining the
`horizontal and vertical axes’ scales,” and “add[ed] horizontal red lines
`identifying the vertical axis envelope of sensor data in the top curve between
`travel lengths 6 and 14 on the horizontal axis, and similar horizontal green
`
`
`2 Ex. 1003, U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2011/0277943 A1.
`
`3
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`
`lines for the bottom curve.” Id. Petitioner’s Request does not challenge the
`foregoing findings.
`The challenged findings are that “the top curve varies back and forth
`between a minimum of about 8.65 kg and a maximum of about 9.65 kg, and
`the bottom curve varies back and forth between a minimum of about 7.70 kg
`and a maximum of about 8.70 kg.” Id. at 31–32 (emphases added).
`Petitioner argues these findings, as to the respective maximum values of the
`two curves, misapprehended what is shown in Figure 6 of Lin ’943, and
`therefore are clearly erroneous under a preponderance of the evidence. See
`Req. Reh’g 1–2, 5–6; 35 U.S.C. § 326(e) (“[T]he petitioner shall have the
`burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the
`evidence.”). As a result, Petitioner argues, the Decision’s further finding
`that “both envelopes are about 1 kg wide, which represents an 11–12%
`variation from the nominal 8–9 kg values being recorded” also is in error.
`Dec. 32; Req. Reh’g 5–6.
`We agree with Petitioner that the Decision erred in finding the top red
`line in Figure 6 of Lin ’943 intersects the vertical axis at about 9.65 kg, and
`the top green line intersects the vertical axis at about 8.70 kg. We also
`accept Petitioner’s contention that, viewed correctly, the top red line
`intersects the vertical axis at about 9.15 kg, and the top green line intersects
`the vertical axis at about 8.35 kg. See Req. Reh’g 1–2, 5–6. With this
`correction, the Decision’s further finding should have been that the red and
`green envelopes are both about 0.5–0.65 kg wide (not 1 kg wide), which
`represents a 5.6–8.1% variation (not an 11–12% variation) from the nominal
`8–9 kg values being recorded in Figure 6, due at least in part to sensor noise.
`See id. at 5 & n.1.
`
`4
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`
`
`Thus, in response to Petitioner’s Request, we modify the Decision as
`set forth in an Errata separately entered with the present decision.
`
`B. Whether Correcting the Decision’s Erroneous Findings Modifies
`the Outcome of the Decision
`Petitioner’s Request argues the Decision “[s]et[s] out from” the
`erroneous findings discussed in Section III.A above, which “permeate the
`reasoning leading to” the Decision’s ultimate conclusion that Figure 6 of
`Lin ’943 “does not support Petitioner’s contention that Lin ’943 discloses a
`second torque that is a constant torque” as required by claims 1 and 3 of the
`’547 patent. Req. Reh’g 2 (citing Dec. 30–36); Dec. 36 (claim 1) (emphasis
`added), 36–37 (claim 3). Therefore, in Petitioner’s view, the Decision
`“misapprehended Petitioner’s arguments regarding whether Figure 6 of
`Lin ‘943 disclosed the second torque of” claims 1 and 3, and “rehearing is
`proper.” Req. Reh’g 2, 3, 4. Specifically, according to Petitioner, the
`“corrected interpretation of Figure 6” discussed in Section III.A above “will
`undo this misapprehension [of Petitioner’s argument] and support
`Petitioner’s argument.” Id. at 4.
`Petitioner’s Request relies on evidence that was first submitted with
`Petitioner’s Request, and on evidence that was in the record prior to entry of
`the Decision. We separately consider these two aspects of the Request.
`
`1.
`
`Evidence First Submitted with Petitioner’s Request
`
`Factual and Procedural Background
`a.
`On May 4, 2021, Petitioner’s counsel sent an e-mail communication
`to the Board, requesting “authorization to file an exhibit with the rehearing
`request that Petitioner will file on or before May 8, 2021.” Ex. 3001.
`
`5
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`
`Petitioner described the new exhibit as “a supplemental expert declaration
`by Petitioner’s expert” Dr. Zhang, setting forth his “opinions regarding the
`industry-standard level of reasonable manufacturing tolerance in the context
`of” claims 1 and 3 of the ’547 patent. Id. Petitioner also provided a period
`of time when both parties were available for a conference call with the
`Board to discuss this request. See id.
`On May 6, 2021, we responded to Petitioner’s e-mail request. See id.
`We stated: “No conference is necessary. Petitioner’s requested authorization
`is denied. A final written decision has been entered, so the factual record in
`this proceeding is closed. Any request for rehearing must be based on the
`evidence presented prior to the final written decision.” Id.
`On May 8, 2021, Petitioner filed the Request and four new Exhibits,
`numbered Exhibits 1019–1022. Exhibit 1022 is a Supplemental Declaration
`from Dr. Zhang (“the New Zhang Declaration”). Exhibits 1019–1021 are
`documents cited in the New Zhang Declaration (“the New Documents”).
`On May 11, 2021, Patent Owner’s counsel sent an e-mail
`communication to the Board, requesting authorization to file a Motion to
`Strike or Expunge the New Zhang Declaration and New Documents. See
`Ex. 3002. We denied the requested authorization, but noted that “if the
`panel ultimately concludes that it will need to consider the evidence newly
`cited with Petitioner’s Request in order to rule on the merits of the Request,
`then at that time Patent Owner will be granted authorization to file a Motion
`to Expunge the newly cited evidence.” Id. Based on our decision set forth
`below, Patent Owner need not file a Motion to Strike or Expunge.
`
`6
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`
`
`Analysis
`b.
`Petitioner’s Request acknowledges the Board previously “denied
`Petitioner’s [e-mail] request for filing new evidence,” but nonetheless
`“submits that good cause exists for admitting” the New Zhang Declaration
`and New Documents. Req. Reh’g 6.
`Petitioner correctly identifies “good cause” as the applicable standard
`for determining whether new evidence may be submitted with Petitioner’s
`Request. See id. For example, the PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide
`(Nov. 2019)3 (“CTPG”) provides: “Ideally, a party seeking to admit new
`evidence with a rehearing request would request a conference call with the
`Board prior to filing such a request so that it could argue ‘good cause’ exists
`for admitting the new evidence,” and alternatively “a party may argue ‘good
`cause’ exists in the rehearing [request] itself.” CTPG, 90 (quoting Huawei
`Device Co. Ltd. v. Optis Cellular Tech., LLC, IPR2018-00816, Paper 19 at 4
`(PTAB Jan. 8, 2019) (precedential)).
`Given the procedural history summarized in Section III.B.1.a above,
`Petitioner here makes its case for good cause in the Request itself. Petitioner
`asserts the New Zhang Declaration and New Documents are “highly relevant
`to the matter in dispute because [they establish] Figure 6 of Lin ’943 . . .
`discloses a constant second torque within reasonable manufacturing
`tolerance, as required by” the Final Written Decision’s construction of
`claims 1 and 3 of the ’547 patent. Req. Reh’g 6–7 (emphasis added).
`According to Petitioner, this new evidence “could not have been introduced
`before” the Decision, because “the Board had not incorporated the concept
`
`
`3 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`7
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`
`of a ‘reasonable manufacturing tolerance’ into the construction” prior to the
`Decision. Id. at 7 (citing Dec. 19). On that basis, Petitioner asserts “there
`had not been any meaningful opportunity of discussion on this perspective of
`the construction before the issuance of the” Decision. Id. Petitioner
`moreover asserts “the introduction of the new evidence will not unduly
`prejudice Patent Owner . . . because Patent Owner will have the opportunity
`to respond during the rehearing.” Id.
`Dr. Zhang newly testifies, firstly, that the Decision misapprehended
`the disclosure in Figure 6 of Lin ’943, as discussed in Section III.A above.
`See Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 8–9, 14–16. There is no good cause for accepting this new
`testimony. As discussed in Section III.A above, these errors in the Decision
`are readily discernable from reviewing Figure 6 of Lin ’943 itself, without
`testimony from a person of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, Petitioner’s
`position on this point is persuasive even without the newly proffered witness
`testimony. We discern little benefit to be gained by admitting this
`testimony, and permitting cross examination by Patent Owner’s counsel, at
`the present rehearing phase of the proceeding. Even if Patent Owner wanted
`to quibble over Petitioner’s reading of the vertical scale in Figure 6 of
`Lin ’943 that leads to the corrected values of 9.15 kg and 8.35 kg, which we
`have accepted for purposes of the present decision, any potential outcome of
`such quibbles would not materially affect the basis for our decision, which
`already is in Patent Owner’s favor.
`Dr. Zhang newly testifies, secondly, that when the Decision’s findings
`are corrected as set forth in Section III.A above, “Figure 6 of Lin ’943 does
`disclose a constant torque, within reasonable manufacturing tolerances,”
`applying the Decision’s construction of claims 1 and 3 of the ’547 patent.
`
`8
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`
`Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 7, 10, 17 (emphasis added). Here, Dr. Zhang testifies that “the
`manufacturing tolerance for the torque of a spring that is designed to achieve
`a constant torque is publicized as ±10% by various reputable manufacturers
`on their web sites and publications,” and cites the New Documents in
`support. Id. ¶¶ 18–25. Dr. Zhang further testifies that this ±10% value is
`“a single-sided deviation in torque measurement of 10% or less of the true
`value of the torque from the true value of the torque.” Id. ¶ 26 (emphasis
`added). According to Dr. Zhang, the correct reading of Figure 6 of Lin ’943
`as set forth in Section III.A above reflects a single-sided deviation in torque
`measurement of about 2.81% in the top curve, and about 4.05% in the
`bottom curve, both well within the ±10% reasonable manufacturing
`tolerance range. Id. ¶¶ 27–31.
`There is no good cause for accepting this new testimony concerning
`reasonable manufacturing tolerances for a constant torque spring section,
`and applying such tolerances to Figure 6 of Lin ’943. It is true that the
`Decision construed the limitation of claims 1 and 3 reciting a second torque
`that “is equal to a maximum value of the first torque” (Ex. 1001, 8:8–11,
`8:50–53) to require “a constant torque, equal to the maximum value of the
`first torque, within reasonable manufacturing tolerances.” Dec. 19
`(emphases added). However, this aspect of the claim construction resulted
`from Dr. Zhang’s own testimony. See id. at 18–19.
`Specifically, Dr. Zhang had testified “‘equal to’ a value does not mean
`the torque has to stay constant at the exact value.” Id. at 18 (quoting
`Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 7–8). The Decision acknowledged that “[i]t may very well be,
`as Dr. Zhang testifies, that it is ‘infeasible’ to construct a coil spring ‘that
`can maintain a perfectly unchanging amount of torque,’ and ‘[a] reasonable
`
`9
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`
`amount of error or deviation is always anticipated.’” Id. (emphasis added)
`(quoting Ex. 1016 ¶ 9). Based on this testimony, “we determine[d] a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the limited ability of real-world
`manufacturing processes to generate a coil spring having a perfectly constant
`torque at an acceptable cost, and would accordingly not interpret claim 1 [or
`claim 3] to require such a torque.” Id. at 18–19. Accordingly, the Decision
`incorporated reasonable manufacturing tolerances into the construction of
`claims 1 and 3, in recognition of Dr. Zhang’s testimony that “[a] reasonable
`amount of error or deviation is always anticipated.” Id.; Ex. 1016 ¶ 9.
`Now, as part of Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing of the Decision,
`the New Zhang Declaration and New Documents belatedly attempt to
`expound upon the “reasonable amount of error or deviation” that Dr. Zhang
`acknowledged, prior to the Decision, “is always anticipated.” Ex. 1016 ¶ 9.
`There is no good cause for this attempt to supplement Dr. Zhang’s original
`testimony, which failed to address whether the sensor noise that is evident in
`Figure 6 of Lin ’943 represents a reasonable amount of error or deviation
`consistent with a constant torque. See, e.g., Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply),
`6–11 (analyzing Figure 6 of Lin ’943); Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 10–16 (same). The only
`cause for this attempted evidentiary supplement that we can discern is the
`fact that the Decision adopted Dr. Zhang’s own reading of claims 1 and 3 as
`permitting a reasonable amount of error or deviation from a perfectly
`constant torque. This does not excuse Dr. Zhang’s failure to apply, prior to
`the Decision, his own understanding of the scope of claims 1 and 3 in this
`regard to the disclosure of Lin ’943.
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude there is no good cause for the
`New Zhang Declaration and New Documents being submitted with
`
`10
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing, rather than prior to the Decision. In this
`circumstance, we expunge the new evidence from the record. See CTPG, 90
`(“Absent a showing of ‘good cause’ . . . new evidence will not be
`admitted.”); Huawei, Paper 19 at 4 (determining no good cause existed for
`evidence newly filed with a request for rehearing, and “[c]onsequently, we
`exercise our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.7(a) to expunge” the evidence)
`(precedential).
`
`Evidence in the Record Prior to the Decision
`2.
`Petitioner’s Request argues that, based on the evidence of record prior
`to entry of the Decision, and after correcting the Decision’s erroneous
`findings as discussed in Section III.A above, a preponderance of the
`evidence supports Petitioner’s argument that Figure 6 of Lin ’943 discloses
`the claimed “constant” torque between travel lengths 6 and 14, or
`alternatively between travel lengths 8 and 12. Req. Reh’g 4–6, 9–12. As
`discussed above, the correct finding is that the two curves in Figure 6 of
`Lin ’943 illustrate a 5.6–8.1% variation (not an 11–12% variation as
`erroneously found in the Decision) from the nominal 8–9 kg values being
`recorded, due at least in part to sensor noise. See supra Section III.A.
`Petitioner characterizes this factual correction, from 11–12% to 5.6–8.1%, as
`“much-reduced” such that “the sensor noise is not so significant as to
`prevent the application of the Board’s construction of the second torque.”
`Req. Reh’g 5–6; see also Dec. 34 (“We have construed claim 1 to permit
`deviations from a purely constant second torque, within reasonable
`manufacturing tolerances,” but “from the foregoing findings, it is apparent
`
`11
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`
`that the sensor noise in Figure 6 of Lin ’943 is too significant to allow us to
`apply this construction in any meaningful way.”).
`We disagree. Even correcting the Decision’s erroneous findings as
`discussed in Section III.A above, we still find Figure 6 of Lin ’943 exhibits
`“a significant amount of sensor noise in the two torque curves.” Dec. 30
`(lines 22–23). To Petitioner’s point, the correct characterization of the
`Figure as illustrating a 5.6–8.1% variation, rather than an 11–12% variation
`as originally found, reflects a smaller amount of noise in the measured
`torque data. Nonetheless, in our view, the variation still is significant.
`Moreover, the foregoing quantification of the noise variations seen in
`Figure 6 of Lin ’943, which we qualitatively determine to be significant, is
`not the only consideration leading us to conclude a preponderance of the
`evidence does not indicate Lin ’943 discloses a second torque that is a
`constant torque equal to the maximum value of the preceding torque region.
`The Decision discusses various other considerations, which are not affected
`by our originally erroneous quantification of the variations seen in Figure 6
`of Lin ’943, and are not challenged in Petitioner’s Request. See Dec. 32
`(line 5) – 34 (line 24).
`Petitioner’s Request does address one additional consideration:
`whether, after correcting the Decision’s erroneous findings as discussed in
`Section III.A above, Maeda4 and related testimony from Patent Owner’s
`witness Dr. Vallee are inconsistent with finding that Figure 6 of Lin ’943
`fails to disclose a second torque that is constant and equal to the maximum
`value of the preceding torque region. See Req. Reh’g 9–12. The Decision
`
`
`4 Exs. 1004 (English translation) & 1005 (original), JP S53-115442.
`
`12
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`
`concluded there is no such inconsistency. See Dec. 34 (line 25) –
`36 (line 13).
`Figure 6 of Lin ’943, and Figure 3(a) of Maeda, are reproduced
`below.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5 Our reproduction of Maeda’s Figure 3(a) is taken from Exhibit 1005 rather
`than Exhibit 1004, because the former is sharper and clearer than the latter.
`
`13
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`
`Both Figures illustrate a varying torque profile, provided along the length of
`an unequal-torque coil spring. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33, 45, 52; Ex. 1004, 1–2.
`The spring sections of particular interest here are between travel lengths 6
`and 14 in Figure 6 of Lin ’943, and between turns 4 and 7 (x-axis) in
`Figure 3(a) of Maeda.
`Petitioner’s Request relies on Dr. Vallee’s characterization of
`Figure 3(a) of Maeda as illustrating, between turns 4 and 7, a spring torque
`that is “far more likely [to be] actually constant” than to be “decreasing,”
`and indeed the top curve in this region “displays a constant torque.”
`Ex. 2001 ¶ 84 (emphases added); Req. Reh’g 9. This testimony was
`provided to oppose Petitioner’s contention, and Dr. Zhang’s testimony, that
`the torque in this region of Maeda’s spring is decreasing. Compare Ex. 2001
`¶¶ 79–84, with Pet. 56–57, 64, and Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 207, 243–244.
`Petitioner’s Request argues that, if Maeda’s spring provides a constant
`torque between turns 4 and 7, as Dr. Vallee testifies, then Lin’s spring
`likewise provides a constant torque between travel lengths 6 and 14.
`Req. Reh’g 9–12. As discussed in Section III.A above, the correct reading
`of Figure 6 of Lin ’943 reflects a 5.6% variation (top curve) or an 8.1%
`variation (bottom curve) in torque due to sensor noise between travel
`lengths 6 and 14. Petitioner equates those variations to single-sided
`variabilities of ±2.81% and ±4.05%, respectively. Id. at 10. Petitioner
`applies the same variability analysis to Figure 3(a) of Maeda, and determines
`Maeda’s top curve exhibits a ±4.26% single-sided variability between
`turns 4 and 7, and Maeda’s bottom curve exhibits a ±4.76% single-sided
`variability between turns 4 and 7. Id. at 9–10. Thus, Petitioner concludes
`
`14
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`
`the sensor noise variabilities in Maeda are “bigger” than in Lin ’943. Id.
`at 10–11 (emphasis by Petitioner).
`Based on that comparison, Petitioner argues the Decision erred in
`stating: “Figure 6 of Lin ’943 exhibits much more up-and-down sensor
`noise between travel lengths 6 and 14, than Figure 3a of Maeda exhibits
`between turns 4 and 7,” and “[i]t is much more difficult to discern a flat
`line trend in the applicable region of Lin ’943, than in the applicable region
`of Maeda.” Id. at 10 (quoting Dec. 36, emphases by Petitioner). These
`alleged errors, in Petitioner’s view, “caused the Board to misapprehend
`Petitioner’s argument that [Dr. Vallee’s] interpretation of Figure 3a of
`Maeda supports the finding that Figure 6 of Lin ‘943 discloses a constant
`torque trend between travel lengths 6 and 14.” Id. at 11.
`Upon review of the foregoing, we will assume that Petitioner’s
`comparison between the respective sensor noise variabilities of Maeda and
`Lin ’943 is a valid comparison. With that assumption, our finding in the
`Decision that “Figure 6 of Lin ’943 exhibits much more up-and-down sensor
`noise between travel lengths 6 and 14, than Figure 3a of Maeda exhibits
`between turns 4 and 7” (Dec. 36 (lines 7–9)) is suspect. We, therefore,
`hereby withdraw reliance on that finding as supporting our Decision.
`Nonetheless, we continue to conclude there is no inconsistency
`between Dr. Vallee’s testimony, on the one hand, that a constant torque
`cannot be discerned in Figure 6 of Lin ’943 between travel lengths 6 and 14
`(Dec. 26; Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 25–30, 38–40), and on the other hand, that Figure 3(a)
`of Maeda illustrates a torque between turns 4 and 7 that is far more likely to
`be constant than decreasing, and Maeda’s upper curve displays a constant
`torque between turns 4 and 7 (Ex. 2001 ¶ 84).
`
`15
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`
`
`We continue to find “[i]t is much more difficult to discern a flat line
`trend in the applicable region of Lin ’943, than in the applicable region of
`Maeda, and this discrepancy justifies different conclusions as to whether
`these two regions display a constant torque within reasonable manufacturing
`tolerances.” Dec. 36 (lines 9–13). The upper and lower curves in Maeda’s
`Figure 3(a) follow an easily discernable stepped pattern: a first step at
`turns 0.5 through 3.5, which decreases to a second step at turns 4.0
`through 7.0, which increases to a third step at turns 8.0 through 11.0, which
`decreases to a fourth step at turns 11.5 through 15.0, which increases to a
`fifth step at turns 15.5 through 19.0. See Ex. 1005, Fig. 3(a); Ex. 1004, 1–2
`(referring to “step-level differences” along the length of a spring). Further,
`the upper steps all appear to be roughly level at 12 kg-mm (top curve) or
`10 kg-mm (bottom curve), and the lower steps all appear to be roughly level
`at 9.2 kg-mm (top curve) or 8.5 kg-mm (bottom curve). See Ex. 1005,
`Fig. 3(a). Figure 6 of Lin ’943, by contrast, does not follow an easily
`discernable stepped pattern, which makes it much more difficult to discern a
`flat line trend in Lin ’943 between travel lengths 6 and 14.
`Moreover, as mentioned in the Decision, “it is clear that only the
`illustration of Figure 6 [in Lin ’943] might provide” evidentiary support for
`finding Lin ’943 discloses the second torque of claims 1 and 3, and “the
`written description does not.” Dec. 30 (lines 1–21). The written description
`of Maeda, by contrast, bolsters Dr. Vallee’s opinion that the spring
`illustrated in Figure 3(a) likely has a constant torque between turns 4 and 7.
`Maeda describes its springs as “gradually produc[ing] torque and force in
`steps” having an adjustable “torque length (long/short) of the flat portion of
`each step.” Ex. 1004, 1 (emphases added). Maeda also describes its
`
`16
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`
`Figure 2 as illustrating a spring body having three sections A, B, and C, in
`which sections A and C have “the same” repulsive forces, much like the
`upper and lower steps shown in Figure 3(a). Id. at 2, Fig. 2; see also
`Ex. 2001 ¶ 84 (discussing this disclosure in Maeda).
`After fully considering Petitioner’s Request, and the evidence of
`record, including our corrected findings as set forth in Section III.A above,
`we continue to conclude that a preponderance of the evidence does not
`support Petitioner’s contention that Lin ’943 discloses a second torque that is
`a constant torque equal to the maximum value of the preceding torque
`region, as is required by claims 1 and 3 of the ’547 patent.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons provided, after considering Petitioner’s Request, we
`modify the Decision as set forth in an Errata separately entered with the
`present decision, but we maintain the outcome of the Decision. We further
`conclude Petitioner’s submission of new evidence with Petitioner’s Request
`is not supported by good cause.
`Outcome of Decision on Rehearing:
`
`Claim(s) 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
`Lin ’943,
`Yamashita
`
`103
`
`1, 3
`
`Denied
`
`Granted
`
`1, 3
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`
`
`Final Outcome of Final Written Decision after Rehearing:
`
`Claim(s) 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
`
`Claims
`Shown
`Unpatentable
`
`
`Claims
`Not Shown
`Unpatentable
`1, 3
`
`102(a)(2)
`
`Lin ’943
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`Lin ’943,
`Yamashita
`
`Admitted Prior Art,
`Lin ’943
`
`Maeda
`
`Lin ’109, Maeda
`
`Wang Drawing
`
`Ruggles,
`Wang Drawing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`112(b)
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`2, 4
`
`1, 3
`
`1, 3
`
`1, 3
`
`1
`
`3
`
`1
`
`3
`
`2, 4
`
`1
`
`1, 3
`
`1, 3
`
`1
`
`3
`
`1
`
`3
`
`
`
`1
`
`1, 3
`
`102(a)(1)
`
`On Sale Bar
`(Wang Springs)
`
`Overall
`Outcome
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2, 4
`
`V. ORDER
`Accordingly, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing is denied; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Exhibits 1019–1022 shall be
`expunged from the record of this proceeding.
`
`18
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Hao Tan
`Shen Wang
`ARCH & LAKE LLP
`haotan@archlakelaw.com
`shenwang@archlakelaw.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Mainak A. Mehta
`Michael C. Jones
`Robert H. Sloss (pro hac vice)
`PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP
`miku.mehta@procopio.com
`michael.jones@procopio.com
`robert.sloss@procopio.com
`
`19
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
