UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GM Global Technology Operations LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`U.S. Design Patent No. D840,306
`
`Filed: June 28, 2017
`
`Issued: February 12, 2019
`
`Title: Vehicle Endgate
`
`__________________________
`
`PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. DESIGN PATENT NO. D840,306
`
`Post Grant Review No.: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 4
`
`III.
`
`FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.203 ................................................................. 6
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.204 ............................................ 6
`
`A. Grounds for Standing – 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a) ................................. 6
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Identification of Challenged Claims for Which Post Grant Review is
`Requested and Specific Statutory Grounds on which the Challenge is
`Based – 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(1) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2) ......... 6
`
`Overview of the ’306 Patent and Claim Construction Thereof –
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(3) ....................................................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The ’306 Patent ........................................................................... 7
`
`Claim Construction of the ’306 Patent .....................................11
`
`D. How the Challenged Claim is Unpatentable – 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.204(b)(4) ......................................................................................15
`
`E.
`
`Evidence Relied Upon to Support the Challenge and the Relevance of
`the Evidence to the Challenge Raised – 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(5) .....16
`
`V. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................17
`
`A. Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................17
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Designs Found Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................21
`
`Designer of Ordinary Skill ..................................................................27
`
`D. Ordinary Observer ...............................................................................28
`
`VI. THE ’306 PATENT IS OBVIOUS OVER PATENT OWNER’S 2015
`CHEVROLET COLORADO IN VIEW OF THE 2013 FORD FLEX. ........29
`
`VII.
`
`IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE ’306 PATENT IS OBVIOUS OVER
`PATENT OWNER’S 2015 CHEVROLET COLORADO IN VIEW OF THE
`2013 FORD FLEX IN FURTHER VIEW OF THE 2010 DODGE RAM
`AND SCHIAVONE.......................................................................................41
`
`VIII. THE ’306 PATENT IS OBVIOUS OVER PATENT OWNER’S 2014
`CHEVROLET SILVERADO IN VIEW OF THE 2013 FORD FLEX. .......51
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IX.
`
`IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE ’306 PATENT IS OBVIOUS OVER
`PATENT OWNER’S 2014 CHEVROLET SILVERADO IN VIEW OF
`THE 2013 FORD FLEX IN FURTHER VIEW OF THE 2010 DODGE
`RAM AND SCHIAVONE. ...........................................................................58
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................68
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
` 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 18, 19
`
`C & D Zodiac, Inc. v. b/e Aerospace, Inc.,
` PGR2017-00019, Paper No. 37, 2018 WL 5298631 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2018) ..27
`
`Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc.,
` IPR2017-00096, Paper No. 28, 2018 WL 1582298 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018) . 20,
`24, 25
`
`Contessa Food Prods., Inc. v. Conagra, Inc.,
` 282 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...........................................................................12
`
`Dobson v. Dornan,
` 118 U.S. 10 (1886) ...............................................................................................12
`
`Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne, Inc.,
` 256 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ...........................................................................18
`
`Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co.,
` 101 F.3d 100 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ..................................................................... passim
`
`Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.,
` 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................................................................... 12, 13
`
`Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc.,
` 796 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...........................................................................12
`
`High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.,
` 730 F.3d 1301 (Fed.Cir.2013) .............................................................................13
`
`In re Borden,
` 90 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ..................................................................... passim
`
`In re Carter,
` 673 F.2d 1378 (C.C.P.A. 1982) ...........................................................................19
`
`In re Chung,
` No. 00–1148, 2000 WL 1476861 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 4, 2000) .................................19
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`In re Lamb,
` 286 F.2d 610 (C.C.P.A. 1961) ..................................................................... passim
`
`In re Nalbandian,
` 661 F.2d 1214 (C.C.P.A. 1981) .................................................................... 19, 21
`
`In re Rosen,
` 673 F.2d 388 (C.C.P.A. 1982) ................................................................ 19, 29, 51
`
`In re Smith Int’l, Inc.,
` 871 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...........................................................................18
`
`Int’l Seaway Trading Corp v. Walgreens Corp.,
` 589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...........................................................................20
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex,
` 550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................................20
`
`Marten Transport, Ltd. v. Platform Advertising, Inc.,
` No. 14-2464-JWL, 2016 WL 1718862 (D. Kan. Apr. 29, 2016) ........................45
`
`MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP,
` 747 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................... passim
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
` 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...........................................................................12
`
`Schwinn Bicycle Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Co.,
`444 F.2d 295 (9th Cir. 1970) ................................................................................21
`
`Sofpool LLC v. Kmart Corp.,
` No. S-10-3333 (LKK), 2013 WL 2384331 (E.D. Cal. May 30, 2013), aff’d, 550
`Fed. Appx. 896 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...........................................................................20
`
`Sport Dimension, Inc. v. Coleman Co., Inc.,
` 820 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...........................................................................13
`
`Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc.,
` 566 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...........................................................................20
`
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Sols., Inc.,
` 698 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................ 38, 45, 62, 65
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (2018) ................................................................ 38, 45, 48, 52
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 (2018) ........................................................................................6, 17
`
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
` Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) .................................................................... 1
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 803(16) ...............................................................................................37
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 803(8) .......................................................................................... 30, 48
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 807 .....................................................................................................45
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(8) ............................................................................................37
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..............................................................................................11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`No.
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`1001 U.S. Design Patent No. D840,306 (“the ’306 Patent”).
`
`1002
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. D840,306.
`
`1003 Declaration of James M. Gandy, dated October 10, 2019.
`
`1004 Declaration of Jason C Hill, dated October 10, 2019.
`
`1005
`
`1008
`
`Photograph of Embodiment of the ’306 Patent, 2019 Chevrolet
`Silverado, Chevrolet, https://www.chevrolet.com/trucks/previous-
`year/silverado/1500 (accessed August 15, 2019).
`
`1006 Additional Photograph of Embodiment of the ’306 Patent, Chevrolet,
`https://www.chevrolet.com/trucks/previous-year/silverado/1500
`(accessed August 15, 2019).
`
`1007 U.S. Design Patent No. D556,110 (“Schiavone”)
`
`Looking for Vintage Chevy Truck Parts?, Classic Parts,
`https://www.classicparts.com/vintage_truck_parts.asp, archived on
`June 25, 2015 by the Internet Archive organization’s “Wayback
`Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20150625234330/https:/www.classicparts
`.com/vintage_truck_parts.asp
`
`1980 – 86 Ford Trucks: Brochures: 1981 Trucks, Gary’s
`Garagemahal, http://www.garysgaragemahal.com/1981-pickup-
`brochure.html, archived on February 3, 2016 by the Internet Archive
`organization’s “Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20160203091300/http:/www.garysgarage
`mahal.com/1981-pickup-brochure.html
`
`Ford Flex (2013), NetCarShow.com,
`https://www.netcarshow.com/ford/2013-flex/, archived on May 11,
`2013 by the Internet Archive organization’s “Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20130511223924/https:/www.netcarshow
`.com/ford/2013-flex/
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`1011
`
`Ford F-150 “Limited” (2016), NetCarShow.com,
`https://www.netcarshow.com/ford/2016-f-150_limited/, archived on
`August 13, 2015 by the Internet Archive organization’s “Wayback
`Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20150813223801/https:/www.netcarshow
`.com/ford/2016-f-150_limited/
`
`1012 Huw Evans, 2010 Ram 2500 Heavy Duty Review, AutoGuide.com
`(July 14, 2010),
`https://www.autoguide.com/manufacturer/dodge/2010-ram-2500-
`heavy-duty-review-1394.html, archived on February 20, 2013 by the
`Internet Archive organization’s “Wayback Machine” at
`http://web.archive.org/web/20130220072845/https://www.autoguide.c
`om/manufacturer/dodge/2010-ram-2500-heavy-duty-review-
`1394.html.
`
`1013 Kara Snow, 2015 Chevrolet Colorado Work Truck Review,
`Automobile (June 15, 2015), Depiction of 2015 Chevrolet Colorado,
`https://www.automobilemag.com/news/2015-chevrolet-colorado-
`work-truck-review/, archived on March 12, 2016 by the Internet
`Archive organization’s “Wayback Machine” at
`http://web.archive.org/web/20160312164341/https:/www.automobile
`mag.com/news/2015-chevrolet-colorado-work-truck-review/.
`
`1014 Depiction of 2015 Chevrolet Colorado, Image 5, The Car Connection,
`https://www.thecarconnection.com/overview/chevrolet_colorado_201
`5, archived on April 7, 2016 by the Internet Archive organization’s
`“Wayback Machine” at
`http://web.archive.org/web/20160407030426/http://www.thecarconnec
`tion.com/overview/chevrolet_colorado_2015#image=100498769.
`
`1015 Depiction of the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado, Image 31, The Car
`Connection,
`https://www.thecarconnection.com/overview/chevrolet_silverado-
`1500_2014, archived on April 5, 2016 by the Internet Archive
`organization’s “Wayback Machine” at
`http://web.archive.org/web/20160405055623/https://www.thecarconne
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`ction.com/overview/chevrolet_silverado-
`1500_2014#image=100468057.
`
`1016 Depiction of the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado, Image 6, The Car
`Connection,
`https://www.thecarconnection.com/overview/chevrolet_silverado-
`1500_2014, archived on April 5, 2016 by the Internet Archive
`organization’s “Wayback Machine” at
`http://web.archive.org/web/20160405055623/https://www.thecarconne
`ction.com/overview/chevrolet_silverado-
`1500_2014#image=100468075.
`
`1017 U.S. Design Patent No. D758,271 (“McMahan”)
`
`1018 Declaration of Margaret A. Herrmann, dated October 9, 2019.
`
`1019 Curriculum Vitae of James M. Gandy.
`
`1020 Curriculum Vitae of Jason C. Hill.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. (together “LKQ”
`
`or “Petitioner”) respectfully request post grant review of the claim of U.S. Design
`
`Patent No. D840,306 (the “’306 Patent”) assigned to and owned by GM Global
`
`Technology Operations LLC (“GM”). The ’306 Patent (attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`1001) has a filing date of June 28, 2017 and an issue date of February 12, 2019.
`
`Because the filing date of the ’306 Patent is after March 16, 2013, the “first inventor
`
`to file” rules govern this proceeding and conditions for patentability. See Leahy-
`
`Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) . For the
`
`reasons explained below, the ’306 Patent is eligible for post grant review and its sole
`
`claim is unpatentable, so it should be cancelled in its entirety.
`
`The ’306 Patent claims “[t]he ornamental design for a vehicle endgate, as
`
`shown and described.” Ex. 1001, at 1. The ’306 Patent covers a single claim and
`
`five figures. Figure 3 of the ’306 Patent is representative of the design:
`
`1
`
`

`

`Id., FIG 3.
`
`
`
`The solid lines of the ’306 Patent claim a vehicle “endgate,” commonly known
`
`as a “tailgate.” See, e.g., Ex. 1003, Declaration of James M. Gandy (“Gandy Dec.”)
`
`at ¶ 30; Ex. 1004, Declaration of Jason C. Hill (“Hill Dec.”) at ¶ 28. The design has
`
`an upper extending lip over an unclaimed handle, with a raised plateau in the upper
`
`half of the tailgate and a horizontal crease stretching across the design in the lower
`
`half. However, the design elements of the ’306 Patent are nothing new as each
`
`element is readily depicted below in the prior art.
`
`Primary References
`
`2015 Chevrolet Colorado
`
`
`
`2014 Chevrolet Silverado
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1013, at 5; Ex. 1016, at 1.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Secondary References
`
`
`
`2013 Ford Flex
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2010 Dodge Ram
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Design Patent No. D556, 110 (“Schiavone)
`
`
`
`Ex. 1010, at 1; Ex. 1012, at 2; Ex. 1007, FIG. 2.
`
`For the reasons set forth herein, the sole claim of the ’306 Patent, which
`
`merely takes the teachings of prior art and arranges them in an obvious and
`
`predictable manner, is unpatentable as obvious. This Petition shows by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that it is more likely than not that the challenged
`
`claim of the ’306 Patent is unpatentable.
`
`3
`
`

`

`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`In accordance with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, LKQ states as
`
`follows:
`
`Real Parties-In-Interest. LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive
`
`Industries, Inc., are real parties-in-interest. LKQ Corporation is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its corporate
`
`office located at 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois 60661.
`
`Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under
`
`the laws of the State of California with its corporate office located at 500 W.
`
`Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois 60661. Keystone Automotive
`
`Industries, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of LKQ Corporation.
`
`Related Proceedings. In addition to this Petition, LKQ is filing petitions for
`
`Inter Partes Review or Post Grant Review for the following United States Design
`
`Patents also assigned to and owned by GM:
`
`• U.S. Design Patent No. D813,120;
`
`• U.S. Design Patent No. D828,255;
`
`• U.S. Design Patent No. D841,532;
`
`• U.S. Design Patent No. D823,741;
`
`• U.S. Design Patent No. D811,964;
`
`• U.S. Design Patent No. D847,703; and
`
`4
`
`

`

`• U.S. Design Patent No. D847,043.
`
`Designation of Petitioner’s Counsel. Petitioner submits a Power of Attorney
`
`with this Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b). Petitioner identifies the following lead and
`
`backup counsel to represent it in this matter:
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`Barry F. Irwin, P.C.
`
`Reid Huefner
`
`Irwin IP LLC
`
`Irwin IP LLC
`
`222 S. Riverside Plaza
`
`222 S. Riverside Plaza
`
`Suite 2350
`
`Suite 2350
`
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`Phone: 312.667.6081
`
`Phone: 312.667.6083
`
`birwin@irwinip.com
`
`rhuefner@irwinip.com
`
`Reg. No. (Reg. No. 36,557)
`
`Reg. No. (Reg. No. 57,341)
`
`Service Information. Petitioner consents to electronic service in this
`
`proceeding via (1) filing documents in the Patent Review Processing System
`
`(“PRPS”) or (2) emailing the documents to the above-designated counsel (when not
`
`filed in PRPS).
`
`Proof of Service. Proof of service of this Petition on the patent owner at the
`
`correspondence address of record for the ’306 Patent is attached.
`
`5
`
`

`

`III. FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.203
`
`The fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15 is included with this Petition. The
`
`Director is authorized to charge any additional required fees to Deposit Account No.
`
`603199.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.204
`
`A. Grounds for Standing – 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’306 Patent is available for post grant review and
`
`the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting post grant review
`
`challenging the patent claim on the grounds identified in this Petition. Further,
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’306 Patent was issued on February 12, 2019, which is
`
`less than nine months prior to the filing date of this Petition, in compliance with
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.202(a).
`
`B. Identification of Challenged Claims for Which Post Grant Review
`is Requested and Specific Statutory Grounds on which the
`Challenge is Based – 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(1) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.204(b)(2)
`
`Petitioner requests that the single claim of the ’306 Patent be found
`
`unpatentable on the basis that the claim is obvious in light of prior art. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 (2018) (“A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained . . . if the
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed
`
`invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
`
`6
`
`

`

`claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed
`
`invention pertains.”).
`
`C. Overview of the ’306 Patent and Claim Construction Thereof –
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(3)
`
`1. The ’306 Patent
`
`What ultimately became the ’306 Patent, entitled “Vehicle Endgate,” was
`
`filed on June 28, 2017 and assigned Application No. 29/609,077 (the “’077
`
`Application”). See Ex. 1002. The ’077 Application contained a single claim for
`
`“[t]he ornamental design for a vehicle [tailgate], as shown and described.” Id. The
`
`’077 Application contained five figures. On April 4, 2018, the Examiner rejected
`
`the claim of the ’077 Application on indefiniteness grounds. See Ex. 1002, at 82.
`
`On July 24, 2018, applicant amended certain figures of the ’077 Application to
`
`resolve the Examiner’s rejection. Id. at 92. No other changes or amendments were
`
`made during prosecution, and the ’306 Patent issued on February 12, 2019.
`
`The ’306 Patent contains the following figures and descriptions:
`
`7
`
`

`

`“FIG. 1 is a front and left perspective view of the vehicle [tailgate] according
`
`to the present disclosure.” Id. at 1.
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 1.
`
`“FIG. 2 is a left end elevation view thereof.” Id. at 1.
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 2.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`“FIG. 3 is a front elevation view thereof.” Id. at 1.
`
`Id., FIG. 3.
`
`“FIG. 4 is a top plan view thereof.” Id. at 1.
`
`Id., FIG. 4.
`
`“FIG. 5 is a bottom plan view thereof.” Id. at 1.
`
`Id., FIG. 5.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`The description further provides that “[t]he broken lines shown in the
`
`drawings depict portions of the vehicle [tailgate] that form no part of the claimed
`
`design. The shade lines in the figures show contour and not surface ornamentation.”
`
`Id. at 1.
`
`The following photographs published online at the Chevrolet website depict
`
`the embodiment of the claimed design as it is used in commerce, specifically on the
`
`2019 Chevrolet Silverado:
`
`Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec. at ¶ 34; Ex 1004, Hill Dec. at ¶ 33 (citing Ex. 1005, at 1
`
`(cropped and enlarged)).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec. at ¶ 34; Ex 1004, Hill Dec. at ¶ 32 (citing Ex. 1006, at 1
`
`(cropped and enlarged)). Of note, the “debossed” letters seen in these embodiments
`
`
`
`form no part of the claimed design of the ’306 Patent.
`
`2. Claim Construction of the ’306 Patent
`
`In a post grant review (“PGR”), “a claim of a patent . . . shall be construed
`
`using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim
`
`in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in
`
`accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the
`
`patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b).1 LKQ therefore employs that standard herein.
`
`
`1 Effective November 13, 2018, the so-called broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`(“BRI”) standard is no longer appropriate. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents-
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`The scope of a design patent is defined by the solid lines (not the broken or
`
`dashed lines) depicted in the claimed drawings in conjunction with their
`
`descriptions. See, e.g., Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 680 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2008) (en banc) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 1.152); see also Contessa Food Prods., Inc.
`
`v. Conagra, Inc., 282 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Although functional designs
`
`are not protectable via design patent, “[i]f the overall appearance of a claimed design
`
`is not primarily functional, the design claim is not invalid, even if certain elements
`
`have functional purposes.” Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d
`
`1312, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“claim was limited to the ornamental aspects of these
`
`functional elements”). LKQ notes that it is well-settled that a design is represented
`
`better by an illustration than a description. Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 679
`
`(citing Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10, 14 (1886)); see also, Sport Dimension, Inc.
`
`
`application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/procedures/ptab-issues-claim-
`
`construction. Instead, all PGR proceedings must conduct their claim constructions
`
`using the Phillips standard put forth by the Federal Circuit in Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). That change was made to bring the PTAB
`
`in line with the federal courts and the International Trade Commission in
`
`examination
`
`standards.
`
`
`
`See
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-
`
`process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/procedures/ptab-issues-claim-construction.
`
`12
`
`

`

`v. The Coleman Co., Inc., 820 F.3d 1316, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing cases).
`
`However, it may be “helpful to point out . . . various features of the claimed design
`
`as they relate to the . . . prior art,” and thus LKQ does so herein. Egyptian Goddess,
`
`543 F.3d at 680. Cf. High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc., 730 F.3d 1301,
`
`1314–15 (Fed.Cir.2013) (remanding to district court, in part, for a “verbal
`
`description of the claimed design to evoke a visual image consonant with that
`
`design”).
`
`The specification of the ’306 Patent claims “[t]he ornamental design for a
`
`vehicle [tailgate], as shown and described.” See Ex. 1001, at 1. The specification
`
`disclaims any broken lines in the figures, stating “[t]he broken lines shown in the
`
`drawings depict portions of the vehicle [tailgate] that form no part of the claimed
`
`design. The shade lines in the figures show contour and not surface ornamentation.”
`
`Id.
`
`As a result, the claimed design should be construed to be only the portions of
`
`the vehicle tailgate shown in solid lines and can be described as:
`
`The exterior appearance of a vehicle tailgate comprising:
`
`an upper planar surface stretching horizontally the width of the tailgate and
`
`protruding out over the tailgate, forming a contoured upper shape protruding from
`
`the horizontal upper platform first sloping, downward and away from the tailgate
`
`and then, second, sloping downward and toward the tailgate; and
`
`13
`
`

`

`Ex. 1001, at FIG. 2.
`
`
`
`a primarily unadorned vertical surface for the exterior of the tailgate
`
`overhung by the contoured upper shape, with surface features comprising:
`
`a raised plateau that does not stretch the entire width of the tailgate in the top
`
`half of the vertical surface; and
`
`Id., FIG. 3.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`a horizontal crease in the lower portion of the tailgate stretching horizontally
`
`across the entire surface.
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 3; Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec at ¶ 32; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec at ¶¶ 30–32 (setting
`
`forth the design claim’s construction).
`
`D. How
`the Challenged Claim
`§ 42.204(b)(4)
`
`is Unpatentable – 37 C.F.R.
`
`Specifically, and as will be addressed more fully herein, there are four
`
`alternative and non-redundant grounds for unpatentability of the ’306 Patent.
`
`• First, the single claim of the ’306 Patent is unpatentable as obvious
`
`over Patent Owner’s 2015 Chevrolet Colorado (Exs. 1013–1014),
`
`which is the embodiment of U.S. Design Patent No. D758,271 to
`
`McMahan et al. (“McMahan”), in view of the 2013 Ford Flex (Ex.
`
`1010);
`
`• Second, alternatively, the single claim of the ’306 Patent is
`
`unpatentable as obvious over Patent Owner’s 2015 Chevrolet Colorado
`
`15
`
`

`

`(Exs. 1013–1014) in view of the 2013 Ford Flex (Ex. 1010) and in
`
`further view of the 2010 Dodge Ram (Ex. 1012) and Schiavone (Ex.
`
`1007);
`
`• Third, the single claim of the ’306 Patent is unpatentable as obvious
`
`over Patent Owner’s 2014 Chevrolet Silverado (Exs. 1015–1016) in
`
`view of the 2013 Ford Flex (Ex. 1010); and
`
`• Fourth, alternatively, the single claim of the ’306 Patent is
`
`unpatentable as obvious over Patent Owner’s 2014 Chevrolet Silverado
`
`(Exs. 1015–1016) in view of the 2013 Ford Flex (Ex. 1010) and in
`
`further view of the 2010 Dodge Ram (Ex. 1012) and Schiavone (Ex.
`
`1007).
`
`E. Evidence Relied Upon to Support the Challenge and the Relevance
`of the Evidence to the Challenge Raised – 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(5)
`
`The following prior art references render the claim of the ’306 Patent obvious:
`
`Exhibit
`
`1013
`
`Primary/
`Secondary
`Primary
`
`1014
`
`Primary
`
`1015/
`1016
`
`Primary
`
`Description
`
`Depiction of 2015
`Chevrolet Colorado
`
`Depiction of 2015
`Chevrolet Colorado
`
`Depictions of 2014
`Chevrolet Silverado
`
`
`Filing
`Date
`N/A
`
`Publication/
`Issue Date
`03/12/2016
`
`N/A
`
`04/07/2016
`
`N/A
`
`04/05/2016
`
`16
`
`

`

`1017
`
`Primary
`
`1008
`
`Secondary
`
`1009
`
`Secondary
`
`U.S. Design Patent No.
`D758,271 to McMahan et
`al. (“McMahan”)
`
`1952 Chevrolet 3100
`Series
`
`1981 Ford Truck
`
`1010
`
`Secondary
`
`2013 Ford Flex
`
`10/13/2014 06/07/2016
`
`N/A
`
`06/25/2015
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`01/01/1981
`
`05/11/2013
`
`1011
`
`Secondary
`
`2016 Ford F-150 Limited N/A
`
`08/13/2015
`
`1012
`
`Secondary
`
`2010 Dodge Ram 2500
`
`N/A
`
`08/25/2013
`
`1007
`
`Secondary
`
`U.S. Design Patent No.
`D556,110
`
`
`
`V. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A. Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`12/21/2005 11/27/2007
`
`The basis for Petitioner’s challenge to the patentability of the ’306 Patent is
`
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. A patent is invalid or unpatentable as obvious
`
`if “the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the
`
`claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing
`
`date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the
`
`claimed invention pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103. A finding of obviousness does not
`
`require that the combined prior art references be identical to the design patent. See
`
`In re Lamb, 286 F.2d 610, 611 (C.C.P.A. 1961) (“[T]he mere fact that there are
`
`differences over the prior art structures is not alone sufficient to justify a holding
`
`17
`
`

`

`that the design is patentable.”). In other words, the level of similarity for
`
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is much less than that of anticipation under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102, which requires that every essential element of the patent claim must
`
`be found in a single piece of prior art. In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1381
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[A] patent claim is anticipated only if each and every element is
`
`found within a single prior art reference.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Door-
`
`Master Corp. v. Yorktowne, Inc., 256 F.3d 1308, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`
`(“[A]nticipation requires a showing that a single prior art reference is identical in all
`
`material respects to the claimed invention.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). In
`
`contrast to that exacting standard, “[t]he central inquiry in analyzing an ornamental
`
`design for obviousness is whether the design would have been obvious to a designer
`
`of ordinary skill who designs articles of the type involved.” In re Borden, 90 F.3d
`
`1570, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`To determine if a design is obvious, that is to say, whether a designer of
`
`ordinary skill would have combined teachings of the prior art to create a design with
`
`substantially the same overall visual appearance as the claimed design, the finder of
`
`fact must employ a two-step process. “First, ‘one must find a single reference, a
`
`something in existence, the design characteristics of which are basically the same as
`
`the claimed design.’” Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F.3d 1314, 1329 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012) (quoting Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., 101 F.3d 100,103 (Fed. Cir.
`
`18
`
`

`

`1996), quoting In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 391 (C.C.P.A. 1982)). The primary
`
`reference need not contain all ornamental features present in the challenged design
`
`to be deemed a primary reference. Indeed, “on numerous occasions [the Federal
`
`Circuit has] invalidated design patents despite the inclusion of ornamental features
`
`that were entirely absent from prior art designs.” MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter
`
`Mfg., LLP, 747 F.3d 1326, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see, e.g., id. (“[A]dding
`
`ornamental surge stitching on top of a preexisting seam was an insubstantial change
`
`that would have been obvious to a skilled designer.”); In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d
`
`1214, 1217 (C.C.P.A. 1981) (finding a different shape of fluting on finger grips and
`
`different shape of pincers were de minimis differences in design for tweezers); In re
`
`Carter, 673 F.2d 1378, 1380 (C.C.P.A. 1982) (holding that modifications to the
`
`waistband of an infant garment were “de minimis changes which would be well
`
`within the skill of an ordinary designer in the art”); In re Chung, No. 00–3068, 2000
`
`WL 1476861, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 4, 2000) (holding two small depressions in the
`
`design of a cigarette package were de minimis changes).
`
`“Second, ‘other references may be used to modify the primary reference to
`
`create a design that has the same overall visual appearance as the claimed design.’”
`
`Apple, Inc., 678 F.3d at 1329 (quoting Durling, 101 F.3d at 103, quoting In re Rosen,
`
`673 F.2d at 391). Such other or “secondary” references may be used to modify the
`
`primary reference if they are “so related to the primary reference that the appearance
`
`19
`
`

`

`of certain ornamental features in one would suggest the application of those features
`
`to the other.” In re Borden, 90 F.3d at 1575; see also Sofpool LLC v. Kmart Corp.,
`
`No. S-10-3333 (LKK), 2013 WL 2384331, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 30, 2013), aff’d,
`
`550 Fed. Appx. 896 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (unpublished).
`
`The features of the secondary reference are then combined with the primary
`
`reference to create a “hypothetical” combination reference. See MRC Innovations,
`
`Inc., 747 F.3d at 1334–35. Then the hypothetical reference and the claimed design
`
`are compared using the ordinary observer test. See, e.g., Int’l Seaway Trading Corp
`
`v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Campbell Soup Co. v.
`
`Gamon Plus, Inc., IPR2017-00096, Paper No. 28, 2018 WL 1582298, at *7
`
`(P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018). Also noteworthy is that, “[t]he combination of familiar
`
`elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
`
`th