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. D853,903
`
`Filed: December 18, 2018
`
`Issued: July 16, 2019
`
`Title: Vehicle Grille Bezel
`
`__________________________
`
`PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW
`
`OF U.S. DESIGN PATENT NO. D853,903
`
`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 ................................... 5
`
`III.
`
`FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.203 ................................................................. 7
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.204 ............................................ 8
`
`A. Grounds for Standing – 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a) ..................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Identification of Challenged Claim 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) ......... 8
`
`An Overview of the ’903 Patent and Claim Construction Thereof - 37
`C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(3) ............................................................................ 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The ’903 Patent ........................................................................... 8
`
`Claim Construction of the ’903 Patent .....................................14
`
`D. How the Challenged Claim is Unpatentable – 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.204(b)(4) ......................................................................................19
`
`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) .....20
`
`V. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................21
`
`A. Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................21
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Designs Found Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................26
`
`Designer of Ordinary Skill ..................................................................32
`
`D. Ordinary Observer ...............................................................................34
`
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY ..................................................................................35
`
`A. Ground 1: The ’903 Patent is Invalid because it is a Partial-Product
`Patent which Violates the Doctrine of Exhaustion and GM’s
`Customers’ Repair Right. ....................................................................35
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: The Claim of the ’903 Patent is Invalid Due to Same-
`Invention Double Patenting Over U.S. Design Patent No. D852,099.
` .............................................................................................................39
`
`i
`
`

`

`C.
`
`Ground 3: The ’903 Patent Claim is Unpatentable as Obvious over
`Patent Owner’s 2014 Buick Enclave in view of Patent Owner’s 2013
`Buick Regal. ........................................................................................44
`
`D. Ground 4: The ’903 Patent Claim is Unpatentable as Obvious Over
`Patent Owner’s 2013 Buick Regal in view of Patent Owner’s 2013
`Buick Enclave. .....................................................................................53
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................61
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`3Form, Inc. v. Lumicor, Inc.,
`678 Fed. App’x. 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................24
`
`Abbvie Inc. v. Mathilda & Terence Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology Tr., 764 F.3d
`1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................39
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
` 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...........................................................................22
`
`Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336 (1961) ..............37
`
`Ashley Furniture Indus. Inc. v. Lifestyle Enter. Inc., 574 F. Supp. 2d 920 (W.D.
`Wis. 2008) .............................................................................................................35
`
`C & D Zodiac, Inc. v. b/e Aerospace, Inc.,
` PGR2017-00019, Paper No. 37, 2018 WL 5298631 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2018) ..33
`
`Campbell’s Soup Company v. Gamon Plus, Inc.,
`939 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................22
`
`Contessa Food Prods., Inc. v. Conagra, Inc.,
` 282 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...........................................................................15
`
`Dobson v. Dornan,
` 118 U.S. 10 (1886) ...............................................................................................15
`
`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) ...................................................................... 15, 16
`
`Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc.,
` 796 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...........................................................................15
`
`Field v. Google, Inc., 412 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Nev. 2006) ..................................20
`
`Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hercules Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 162 F.3d 1113
`(Fed. Cir. 1998) .....................................................................................................34
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Gorham Co. v. White,
`81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 511 (1871) ..............................................................................36
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966)) ................................................................................................22
`
`High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.,
` 730 F.3d 1301 (Fed.Cir.2013) .......................................................... 16, 24, 53, 60
`
`Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (P.T.A.B.
`Dec. 20, 2019) .......................................................................................................21
`
`Impression Prod., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1523 (2017) ....................37
`
`In re Borden,
` 90 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .......................................................... 22, 23, 52, 59
`
`In re Carter,
` 673 F.2d 1378 (C.C.P.A. 1982) ...........................................................................25
`
`In re Chung,
` No. 00–1148, 2000 WL 1476861 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 4, 2000) .................................25
`
`In re Lamb,
` 286 F.2d 610 (C.C.P.A. 1961) ................................................................ 25, 45, 54
`
`In re Nalbandian,
` 661 F.2d 1214 (C.C.P.A. 1981) .............................................................. 23, 25, 27
`
`In re Rosen,
` 673 F.2d 388 (C.C.P.A. 1982) ................................................................ 22, 45, 53
`
`In re Swett, 451 F.2d 631 (C.C.P.A. 1971) ..............................................................39
`
`In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438 (CCPA 1970) .................................................................39
`
`Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp.,
` 589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .............................................................. 24, 53, 61
`
`Jazz Photo Corp. v. ITC,
`264 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................37
`
`Jore Corp. v. Kouvato, Inc.,
`117 Fed. App’x 761 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................................................23
`
`iv
`
`

`

`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex,
` 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 25, 26
`
`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
`
`Pac. Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, Case No. 6:12-CV-33-
`ORL-28DAB, 2013 WL 12156465 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2013) ..............................35
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
` 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...........................................................................15
`
`Schwinn Bicycle Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Co.,
`444 F.2d 295 (9th Cir. 1970) ................................................................................27
`
`Singer Mfg. Co. v. June Mfg. Co., 163 U.S. 169 (1896) ..........................................39
`
`Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co.,
`148 U.S. 674 (1893) ..............................................................................................36
`
`Sport Dimension, Inc. v. Coleman Co., Inc.,
` 820 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...........................................................................16
`
`Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc.,
` 566 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...........................................................................26
`
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Sols., Inc.,
` 698 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...........................................................................46
`
`Xactware Sols., Inc. v. Pictometry Int’l, Corp.,
` IPR2016-00593, Paper No. 13, 2016 WL 5224310 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016) 47,
`55
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (2018) ................................................................ 46, 47, 54, 55
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 (2018) ........................................................................................8, 21
`
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
` Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) .................................................................... 1
`
`v
`
`

`

` Regulations
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.152 .....................................................................................................15
`37 C.F.R. § 1.152 ..................................................................................................... 15
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..............................................................................................14
`37 CPR. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`Vi
`
`

`

`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Design Patent No. D853,903 (“the ’903 Patent”).
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. D853,903.
`
`1003
`
`Declaration of James M. Gandy, dated February 7, 2020.
`
`1004
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill, dated February 6, 2020.
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`2018 Buick Regal, Buick, https://www.buick.com/sedans/previous-
`year/2018-regal/sportback, archived on October 31, 2019 by the
`Internet Archive
`organization’s
`“Wayback Machine”
`at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20191031161120/https://www.buick.com/
`sedans/previous-year/2018-regal/sportback.
`U.S. Design Patent No. D852,099 (“the ’099 Patent”).
`
`2014 Buick Enclave, http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Buick/Enclave/Buick_US%20Enclave_2014.pd
`f, archived on April 2, 2014 by the Internet Archive organization’s
`“Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140402051007/http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Buick/Enclave/Buick_US%20Enclave_2014.pd
`f.
`2014 Buick Enclave, http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Buick/Enclave/Buick_US%20Enclave_2014.pd
`f, archived on April 2, 2014 by the Internet Archive organization’s
`“Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140402051007/http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Buick/Enclave/Buick_US%20Enclave_2014.pd
`f.
`2014 Buick Enclave brochure, http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Buick/Enclave/Buick_US%20Enclave_2014.pd
`f (accessed on November 4, 2019).
`2013 Buick Regal, http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Buick/Regal/Buick_US%20Regal_2013.pdf,
`archived on April 2, 2014 by the Internet Archive organization’s
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`“Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140402045206/http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Buick/Regal/Buick_US%20Regal_2013.pdf.
`2013 Buick Regal, http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Buick/Regal/Buick_US%20Regal_2013.pdf,
`archived on April 2, 2014 by the Internet Archive organization’s
`“Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140402045206/http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Buick/Regal/Buick_US%20Regal_2013.pdf.
`2013 Buick Regal brochure, http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Buick/Regal/Buick_US%20Regal_2013.pdf
`(accessed on November 4, 2019).
`2013 Buick Enclave, http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Buick/Enclave/Buick_US%20Enclave_2013.pd
`f, archived on April 2, 2014 by Internet Archive organization’s
`“Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140402050053/http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Buick/Enclave/Buick_US%20Enclave_2013.pd
`f.
`2013 Buick Enclave brochure, http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Buick/Enclave/Buick_US%20Enclave_2013.pd
`f (accessed on November 4, 2019).
`2015 Chevrolet Cruze, http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Chevrolet/Cruzee/Chevrolet_US%20Cruzee_20
`15.pdf, archived on March 19, 2015 by Internet Archive organization’s
`“Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20150319134809/http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Chevrolet/Cruzee/Chevrolet_US%20Cruzee_20
`15.pdf.
`2015 Chevrolet Cruze brochure, http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/Chevrolet/Cruzee/Chevrolet_US%20Cruzee_20
`15.pdf (accessed on November 4, 2019).
`2016 Chevrolet Equinox, Motor Trend,
`https://www.motortrend.com/cars/chevrolet/equinox/2016/2016-
`chevrolet-equinox-first-look/, archived on November 20, 2015 by
`Internet Archive organization’s “Wayback Machine” at
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`Description
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20151120233410/http://www.motortrend.
`com/news/2016-chevrolet-equinox-first-look.
`Autobrochures source code, archived on March 13, 2014 by the
`Internet Archive organization’s “Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140313222453/http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/. The introductory view of the webpage is annotated to
`reflect the pertinent source code data.
`Autobrochures source code, archived on May 17, 2014 by the Internet
`Archive Organization’s “Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140517005107/http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/. The introductory view of the webpage is annotated to
`reflect the pertinent source code data.
`
`Autobrochures source code, archived on March 14, 2015 by the
`Internet Archive organization’s “Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20150314210347/http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/. The introductory view of the webpage is annotated to
`reflect the pertinent source code data.
`Autobrochures source code, archived on March 31, 2015 by the
`Internet Archive organization’s “Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20150331130110/http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/. The introductory view of the webpage is annotated to
`reflect the pertinent source code data.
`Motor Trend source code, archived on November 20, 2015 by the
`Internet Archive organization’s “Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20151120022124/https://www.motortrend
`.com/robots.txt.
`Declaration of Margaret A. Herrmann, dated February 7, 2020.
`
`1024
`
`Curriculum Vitae of James M. Gandy.
`
`1025
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Jason C. Hill.
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`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. D853,903 (“the ’903 Patent”) assigned to and owned by GM Global
`
`Technology Operations LLC (“GM” or “Patent Owner”). The ’903 Patent, attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit 1001, was filed on December 18, 2018 as a division of application
`
`No. 29/597,780, filed on Mar. 20, 2017, and issued on July 16, 2019. Because the
`
`filing date of the ’903 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, Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). This Petition shows by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that it is more likely than not that the challenged
`
`claim of the ’903 Patent is unpatentable based on prior art that renders the claim
`
`obvious.
`
`The ’903 Patent claims “[t]he ornamental design for a vehicle grille bezel, as
`
`shown and described.” Ex. 1001, at 1. The ’903 Patent covers a single claim and
`
`five figures. Id. Figure 2 of the ’903 Patent is representative of the design:
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Id., FIG. 2.
`
`The solid lines of the ’903 Patent claim a vehicle grille bezel which includes
`
`a grille bezel with a horizontal top portion and a u-shaped bottom portion, connected
`
`on either side by short, downward angled diagonal sections.
`
`However, these design elements are disclosed by prior art, as shown below in
`
`Patent Owner’s 2014 Buick Enclave, Patent Owner’s 2013 Buick Regal, and Patent
`
`Owner’s 2013 Buick Enclave. Further, it is clear from other Patent Owner vehicle
`
`lines that the design of the ’903 Patent has long before the ‘903 Patent’s filing date
`
`been commonly used as a component of Patent Owner’s design language.
`
`2
`
`

`

`GM’s 2014 Buick Enclave
`
`Ex. 1007, at 1.
`
`GM’s 2013 Buick Regal
`
`Ex. 1010, at 1.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`GM’s 2013 Buick Enclave
`
`
`
`Ex. 1013, at 1.
`
`For the reasons set forth, below—and as shown by a simple comparison of the
`
`’903 Patent and the prior art—the ’903 Patent is unpatentable as obvious.
`
`Further, the ’903 Patent claims a virtually identical design as another patent,
`
`filed by Patent Owner one month earlier: U.S. Patent No. D852,099 (Ex. 1015, “’099
`
`Patent”), which claims an identical vehicle grille bezel:
`
`Ex. 1006, FIG. 2. The two patents placed in proximity illustrate their identity:
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 2; Ex. 1015, FIG. 2. Because GM’s acquisition of the ’903 Patent is
`
`impermissible double patenting, the later-issued of GM’s two redundant patents—
`
`i.e., the ’903 Patent—should be cancelled.
`
`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.
`
`5
`
`

`

`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:
`
`Patent Number
`D797,624
`D797,625
`D811,964
`D813,120
`D813,755
`D823,741
`D828,255
`D840,306
`D841,532
`D847,043
`D847,703
`D850,341
`D852,099
`D859,246
`D859,253
`
`
`Case Number
`
`
`Filing Date
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00062
`IPR2020-00065
`
`IPR2020-00064
`IPR2020-00063
`PGR2020-00004
`PGR2020-00005
`PGR2020-00002
`PGR2020-00003
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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:
`
`6
`
`

`

`Lead Counsel
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`Barry F. Irwin, P.C.
`
`Irwin IP LLC
`
`Reid Huefner
`
`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 ’903 Patent is attached.
`
`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.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IV. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.204
`
`A. Grounds for Standing – 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’903 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. The ’903
`
`Patent is proper for post grant review as nine months have not yet elapsed since the
`
`patent issued.
`
`B. Identification of Challenged Claim 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 ’903 Patent be found
`
`unpatentable on the basis that its 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
`
`claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed
`
`invention pertains.”).
`
`C. An Overview of the ’903 Patent and Claim Construction Thereof -
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(3)
`
`1.
`
`The ’903 Patent
`
`What ultimately became the ’903 Patent, entitled “Vehicle Grille Bezel,” was
`
`filed on December 18, 2018 as a division of Application No. 29/597,780, and
`
`8
`
`

`

`assigned Application No. 29/673,782 (the “’782 Application”). Ex. 1002, at 49. The
`
`’782 Application contained a single claim for “[t]he ornamental design for a
`
`VEHICLE GRILLE BEZEL, as shown and described.” Id. at 60. The ’782
`
`Application contained five figures. Id. at 61–63. The ’782 Application was subject
`
`to an Examiner’s Amendment which amended descriptions of the figures for
`
`consistency and accuracy. Id. at 74. The ’903 Patent issued on July 16, 2019. Id.
`
`at 148; see also id., generally.
`
`The ’903 Patent contains the following figures and descriptions:
`
`“FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a vehicle grille bezel showing my new
`
`design.” Ex. 1001, at 1.
`
`Id., FIG. 1.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`“FIG. 2 is front elevational view thereof.” Id. at 1.
`
`Id., FIG. 2.
`
`“FIG. 3 is a left side elevational view thereof, the right side view being
`
`substantially a mirror image thereof.” Id. at 1.
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 3.
`
`“FIG. 4 is a top plan view thereof.” Id. at 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Id., FIG. 4.
`
`
`
`“FIG. 5 is a bottom plan view thereof.” Id. at 1.
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 5.
`
`The description further provides that “[i]n the drawings, the portions shown
`
`in broken lines form no part of the claimed design.” Id.
`
`Arranged collectively, the drawings illustrate the full scope of the claimed
`
`design:
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`See, id.
`
`The following photograph published online at the Buick website shows an
`
`embodiment of the claimed design as it is used in commerce, specifically on the
`
`2018 Buick Regal. The 2018 Buick Regal is shown below.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, at 1; Ex. 1003, Declaration of James M. Gandy (“Gandy Dec.”) at ¶ 35;
`
`Ex. 1004, Declaration of Jason C. Hill (“Hill Dec.”) at ¶ 33. Further, while Petitioner
`
`asserts several Grounds for unpatentability, infra, Petitioner is aware of numerous
`
`additional instances where Patent Owner has used a substantially similar design as
`
`the design represented in the ’099 Patent prior to the critical date. Specifically,
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s 2015 Chevrolet Cruze and 2016 Chevrolet Equinox demonstrate
`
`how pervasive the design claimed by the ’903 Patent is in the art.
`
` GM’s 2015 Chevrolet Cruze
`
`Ex. 1015.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`GM’s 2016 Chevrolet Equinox
`
`
`
`Ex. 1017, at 6 (enlarged).
`
`2.
`
`Claim Construction of the ’903 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-
`
`14
`
`

`

`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, Inc. 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
`
`design patents protect ornamentation over function, “[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) (“[C]laim 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
`
`
`
`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.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Dimension, Inc. v. The Coleman Co., 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 ’903 Patent claims “[t]he ornamental design for a
`
`vehicle grille bezel, as shown and described.” See Ex. 1001, at 1. The specification
`
`disclaims any broken lines in the figures, stating “[t]he broken lines in the drawings
`
`illustrate portions of the vehicle grille bezel that form no part of the claimed design.”
`
`Id. at 1. Setting aside the unclaimed elements, the claimed design should be
`
`construed to be only the portions of the vehicle grille bezel shown in solid lines and
`
`can be described as:
`
`A vehicle grille bezel comprising:
`
`a substantially horizontal top portion terminating in a short, downward-
`
`pointing diagonal bezel segment at each end; and
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 2 (annotated);
`
`
`EX. 1001, FIG. 2 (annotated);EX. 1001, FIG. 2 (annotated);EX. 1001, FIG. 2 (annotated);
`
`a substantially u-shaped bottom portion extending from one diagonal bezel
`
`
`a substantially u-shaped bottom portion extending from one diagonal bezela substantially u-shaped bottom portion extending from one diagonal bezela substantially u-shaped bottom portion extending from one diagonal bezel
`
`segment to the other diagonal bezel segment;
`
`
`segment to the other diagonal bezel segment;segment to the other diagonal bezel segment;segment to the other diagonal bezel segment;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 2 (annotated);
`
`
`Id., FIG. 2 (annotated);Id., FIG. 2 (annotated);Id., FIG. 2 (annotated);
`
`wherein the substantially u-shaped bottom portion further includes a
`
`
`wherein the substantially u-shaped bottom portion further includes awherein the substantially u-shaped bottom portion further includes awherein the substantially u-shaped bottom portion further includes a
`
`minimum at the center line of the bezel;
`
`
`minimum at the center line of the bezel;minimum at the center line of the bezel;minimum at the center line of the bezel;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`171717
`
`

`

`and wherein the bezel is horizontally convexly curved, and the bottom of the
`
`u-shaped portion is forward of the substantially horizontal portion.
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 2 (annotated); Id., FIG.3 (annotated); Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec. at ¶ 34; Ex.
`
`1004, Hill Dec. at ¶ 32 (setting forth the claim construction). The claimed design is
`
`disclosed through several figures that show the design from different perspectives.
`
`A design is best represented by images rather than words, and although a verbal
`
`construction is required, it is impractical to attempt to verbally characterize every
`
`element of the claimed design. The above claim construction identifies all of the
`
`features of the claimed design that materially contribute to the overall visual
`
`impression it creates; however, the below analyses compare the asserted prior art
`
`with the claimed design in its entirety as depicted in each of the disclosed figures.
`
`Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec. at ¶ 35; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec. at ¶ 33.
`
`18
`
`

`

`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 at least four
`
`non-redundant grounds for unpatentability of the ’903 Patent.
`
`• First, the single claim of the ’903 Patent is unpatentable due to the
`
`doctrines of patent exhaustion and the right to repair;
`
`• Second, the single claim of the ‘903 Patent is unpatentable as invalid
`
`due to double patenting over U.S. Design Patent No. D852,099 (Ex.
`
`1006).
`
`• Third, the single claim of the ’903 Patent is unpatentable as obvious
`
`over Patent Owner’s 2014 Buick Enclave in view of Patent Owner’s
`
`2013 Buick Regal (Exs. 1007–1012);
`
`• Fourth, the single claim of the ’903 Patent is unpatentable as obvious
`
`over Patent Owner’s 2013 Buick Regal in view of Patent Owner’s 2013
`
`Buick Enclave (Exs. 1010–1014).
`
`In the instances where more than one exemplary image is relied upon per
`
`reference, each of the images originates from the same publication. E.g., Exhibits
`
`1007 and 1008 are both drawn from the brochure of Exhibit 1009 and Exhibits 1010
`
`and 1011 are both drawn from the brochure of Exhibit 1012.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`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 ’903 Patent obvious:
`
`Exhibit Primary/
`Secondary
`
`Description
`
`Filing Date Publication/
`Issue Date
`
`1007
`and
`1008
`
`1010
`and
`1011
`
`Primary
`
`2014 Buick Enclave
`
`N/A
`
`04/02