throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: November 30, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LKQ CORPORATION and
`KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Petitioner’s Request
`For Rehearing of Decision on Institution
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner filed a Motion for Rehearing (Paper 9, “Rehearing Request”
`
`or “Req. Reh’g.”) of the Decision Denying Institution of Post-Grant Review
`
`(Paper 8, “Decision” or “Dec.”). We also refer to the Petition (Paper 2,
`
`“Pet.”) and Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board does not review
`
`the merits de novo, but instead reviews the decision for an abuse of
`
`discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a
`
`“decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous
`
`factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v.
`
`Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
`
`(citations omitted).
`
`The party requesting rehearing bears a burden of showing with
`
`particularity why a decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
`Significantly, a rehearing request is not a vehicle for raising new arguments
`
`or evidence, but rather, “must specifically identify all matters the party
`
`believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each
`
`matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Background of the Dispute
`
`The Petition challenges the patentability of the sole design claim of
`
`U.S. Patent No. D850,341 S (Ex. 1001, “the ’341 patent”). Pet. 1. The
`
`challenged claim relates to an “ornamental design for a vehicle fender” as
`
`illustrated in four figures set forth in the ’341 patent and reproduced in the
`
`Decision. Ex. 1001 [57]; Dec. 3. Based on the arguments and evidence
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`
`presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, the Board denied the
`
`Petition and did not institute a post-grant review. Dec. 2, 20.
`
`As Petitioner observes, the Decision identifies three deficiencies in the
`
`challenge. That is, the Petition fails to (1) discern the correct overall visual
`
`impression created by the claimed design; (2) address prominent differences
`
`between the claimed design and the asserted prior art design disclosed in
`
`2015 ATS Coupe; and (3) show sufficiently that 2015 ATS Coupe is a
`
`proper Rosen reference.1,2 Req. Reh’g 3 (citing Dec. 7–18).
`
`B. Three Rationales for Modification
`
`Petitioner advances three rationales for modification of the Decision.
`
`In Petitioner’s view, the Board erred by (1) adopting a claim construction
`
`that does not capture the correct visual impression created by the claimed
`
`design as a whole; (2) analyzing incorrectly the anticipation ground based on
`
`2015 ATS Coupe; and (3) rejecting Petitioner’s view that 2015 ATS Coupe
`
`is a proper Rosen reference. Req. Reh’g 3–15.
`
`Petitioner further divides the second alleged error into three subparts,
`
`arguing that the Board (a) failed to apply the ordinary observer test; (b)
`
`misapprehended or overlooked the overall visual impression created by the
`
`claimed design; and (c) misapprehended or overlooked that a top plan view
`
`of the claimed design is “almost identical” to the 2015 ATS Coupe design.
`
`
`1 As we did in the Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s convention and refer to
`Exhibit 1008 as “2015 ATS Coupe.” Dec. 4 n.1 (quoting Pet. 3).
`
`2 See Dec. 17 (To meet the threshold showing for trial institution, with
`respect to the grounds based on obviousness, Petitioner must first identify “a
`reference, a something in existence, the design characteristics of which are
`basically the same as the claimed design.”) (quoting In re Rosen, 673 F.2d
`388, 391 (CCPA 1982)).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`
`Id. at 8–14 (direct quote from heading on page 12). We arrange our analysis
`
`into sections that mirror the organization of the Rehearing Request.
`
`1. Claim Construction
`
`Petitioner’s first rationale for modification is that “the Decision lost
`
`sight of the visual impression created by the design as a whole” and
`
`overlooked that Petitioner’s proposed claim “construction encompassed
`
`prominent, defining features that materially influenced the visual
`
`impression.” Req. Reh’g. 7. In that regard, Petitioner argues (and we agree)
`
`that design patent claims “should be construed upon their illustrations rather
`
`than verbal descriptions of those illustrations.” Id. at 5. Petitioner also argues
`
`(and we agree in this case) that “an illustration depicts a design better ‘than
`
`[] any description and a description would probably not be intelligible
`
`without the illustration.’” Id. at 5 (quotation omitted).
`
`Petitioner (not the Board) purported to “reduce[] to words the most
`
`prominent and defining elements of the claimed design” in a “verbal
`
`description” limited to “six elements” keyed to two of four figures from
`
`the ’341 patent. Id. at 4; see Pet. 15–17 (verbal description mapped solely to
`
`Figures 3 and 4). The Board, by contrast, took account of the overall visual
`
`impression created by the claimed design as reflected in all four patent
`
`figures. Dec. 3 (reproducing those four figures), 7 (explaining that
`
`Figures 1–4 “reflect the scope of the patented design” and taking “into
`
`account Petitioner’s verbal description of the design in our analysis”).
`
`Petitioner unequivocally averred that its proposed construction
`
`“identifies all features of the claimed design that materially contribute to the
`
`overall visual impression it creates.” Pet. 19. Against that backdrop, the
`
`Board properly considered three additional features identified in the
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`
`Preliminary Response (but ignored in the Petition). Dec. 9–12 (citing Prelim.
`
`Resp. 17–22). The information presented establishes that those three features
`
`“affect the overall shape of the claimed design and contribute to its visual
`
`appearance.” Dec. 12 (quoting Prelim. Resp. 26–27). The Rehearing Request
`
`directs us to no argument or evidence that the Board misapprehended or
`
`overlooked in finding that Petitioner advanced “an incomplete description of
`
`the actual design.” Id. at 7; see Prelim. Resp. 14–22 (citing persuasive
`
`authority and evidence), 35 (Patent Owner contending that Petitioner relies
`
`“on an incomplete description of the claimed design”); Req. Reh’g. 3–7
`
`(expressing disagreement with the Board’s findings but pointing out no
`
`evidence or argument overlooked or misapprehended in the Decision).
`
`We understand that Petitioner disagrees with the Board’s assessment
`
`of the three additional features identified by Patent Owner in the Preliminary
`
`Response. Req. Reh’g. 5–7. Nevertheless, simple disagreement is
`
`insufficient to show error. Petitioner ignored those features in the Petition,
`
`and the Rehearing Request belatedly advances new theories about their
`
`relative impact on the visual impression created by the claimed design as a
`
`whole. Id.
`
`A rehearing request is not a vehicle for correcting or improving a
`
`challenge advanced in a petition. A dissatisfied party must identify the place
`
`in the record where it previously addressed each matter it submits for
`
`review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).We could not have overlooked or
`
`misapprehended the arguments, raised for the first time in the Rehearing
`
`Request, that the three features identified by Patent Owner are “small,
`
`subtle, and inconsequential” or “minor features” having “virtually no impact
`
`on the overall visual impression created by the design.” Req. Reh’g. 5–7.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`
`
`Petitioner also argues that the Board, in practical effect, required the
`
`Petition “to provide an exhaustive verbal inventory of every discernable
`
`feature of the claimed design.” Id. at 5. On the contrary, the Board explained
`
`why the Petition wrongly characterized Petitioner’s claim construction
`
`(repeated verbatim in the Rehearing Request) as sufficient to identify “all
`
`features of the claimed design that materially contribute to the overall
`
`visual impression it creates.” Dec. 9 (quoting Pet. 19) (emphasis added);
`
`Req. Reh’g. 4 (repeating Petitioner’s verbal description keyed to only two of
`
`the four figures set forth in the ’341 patent).
`
`In tandem with the information presented in the Petition, the Board
`
`also appropriately considered the arguments and evidence presented in the
`
`Preliminary Response, which persuasively show that Petitioner’s
`
`characterization is factually incorrect. Dec. 7– 12 (and citations therein to
`
`the record); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(c) (when determining whether to
`
`institute post-grant review, the Board must assess the information advanced
`
`in the petition and any preliminary response filed). The Rehearing Request
`
`does not establish error in our finding that the Petition ignores three features
`
`that “affect the overall shape of the claimed design and contribute to its
`
`visual appearance.” Dec. 12 (quoting Prelim. Resp. 26–27).
`
`2. Anticipation Analysis
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s second rationale for modification of the Decision is that
`
`the Board “legally erred by disregarding” a “substantial similarity between
`
`the overall” claimed design and the 2015 ATS Coupe design. Req. Reh’g. 8.
`
`Here again, Petitioner newly asserts that the three features identified in the
`
`Preliminary Response (and ignored in the Petition) are “minor design
`
`features.” Id. Our reasoning above applies with equal force here. The
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`
`Petition nowhere addresses those features, much less argues that their effect
`
`on the overall visual impression created by the claimed design is “minor.”
`
`Id.; see Pet. 12–19, 46–58 (ignoring those features for purposes of claim
`
`construction and again when analyzing the ground based on anticipation).
`
`
`
`The Decision takes account of “the overall visual impression” created
`
`by “the claimed design,” and the Rehearing Request identifies no error in the
`
`Board’s analysis, including our assessment of the three features identified in
`
`the Preliminary Response. Dec. 9–10; Req. Reh’g. 8–12. Although
`
`Petitioner, in the Petition, indicated an intention to map “the claimed design
`
`‘in its entirety as depicted in each of the disclosed figures’ for comparing
`
`against the prior art,” the Petition fell short of that goal. Req. Reh’g. 4
`
`(quoting Pet. 19). The Petition was silent on three prominent features of the
`
`claimed design and, relatedly, failed to explain adequately how or why
`
`the 2015 ATS Coupe design meets the properly construed claim, which
`
`includes those features. We next address several additional arguments raised
`
`in the Rehearing Request. See Req. Reh’g. 8–15 (for additional arguments).
`
`a. Ordinary Observer Test
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that the Decision fails to apply the ordinary observer
`
`test to the anticipation inquiry. Req. Reh’g. 8. The Decision, however,
`
`devotes an entire section to the ordinary observer test and, further, explains
`
`in detail why the Petition does not show insufficiently that 2015 ATS Coupe
`
`anticipates the challenged design patent claim. Dec. 5–6, 13–17.
`
`The Board explained why an ordinary observer would consider certain
`
`design features to be “visually prominent” (features nowhere mentioned in
`
`the Petition, much less mapped to the design disclosed in 2015 ATS Coupe).
`
`Id. at 5–6 (discussing the ordinary observer test), 13–17 (assessing
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`
`anticipation). The Decision includes findings (uncontested in the Rehearing
`
`Request) that an ordinary observer would have included “a repair shop
`
`professional;” namely, a person “particularly discerning” when purchasing
`
`“replacement vehicle front fenders to repair a customer’s vehicle.” Id. at 5.
`
`The ordinary observer also would have included “a retail consumer, such as
`
`the owner of a vehicle,” having “a contract with its insurance agent that
`
`‘require[s] the insurer to repair vehicles with parts of ‘like kind and quality’”
`
`– that is, “in a way that returns their automobile as closely as possible to its
`
`original appearance and condition.” Id. at 6 (quoting Ex. 2003, 11, 14).
`
`Evidence of record supports the finding that an ordinary observer
`
`would strive to restore the vehicle “as closely as possible to its original
`
`appearance.” Id. Where the ordinary observer would have been “particularly
`
`discerning,” the Board reasonably determined that the challenge stated in the
`
`Petition was deficient for failure to “acknowledge, much less analyze
`
`adequately, a host of visually prominent features that distinguish the claimed
`
`fender design from that disclosed in 2015 ATS Coupe.” Dec. 5, 17; see id.
`
`at 13–16 (and citations therein to the record).
`
`We understand that Petitioner objects to the organization of the
`
`Decision, which devotes separate sections to the ordinary observer test and
`
`the anticipation analysis. Req. Reh’g 8–9. The Rehearing Request does not
`
`explain how or why that circumstance demonstrates error or reflects “no
`
`attempt to compare the overall claimed design against the prior art from the
`
`perspective of the ordinary observer.” Id. (citing Dec. 13–17).
`
`In the alternative, the Decision acknowledged the parties’ somewhat
`
`differing positions on the definition of the ordinary observer. Dec. 5–6. The
`
`Decision explained why “both parties’ definitions are within the purview of
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`
`an ordinary observer.” Id. at 6. The Board expressly determined (in a finding
`
`uncontested in the Rehearing Request) that “adopting one parties’ definition
`
`of the ordinary observer over the other would not change the result in this
`
`case.” Id. Petitioner does not explain how or why the result would change
`
`based on the Board’s selection of a different definition of record. Req.
`
`Reh’g 8–9. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner makes out a
`
`basis for modification of the Decision on this basis.
`
`b. Claimed Design as a Whole
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that the Board failed to consider the claimed design
`
`as a whole. Req. Reh’g 9. That argument is unpersuasive for reasons set
`
`forth above in connection with our analysis of claim construction. Here
`
`again, Petitioner argues that the three features of the claimed design
`
`identified in the Preliminary Response (and ignored in the Petition) are
`
`“minute and subtle differences that an ordinary observer would not have
`
`noticed over the overwhelming similarities between the designs.” Id. at 9.
`
`Petitioner newly casts those features as “small differences in isolation” (id.
`
`at 11) but made no attempt in the Petition to characterize their relative
`
`importance when comparing the claimed and prior art designs (Pet. 48–58).
`
`We reject Petitioner’s attempt to raise new arguments for the first time
`
`in the Rehearing Request. Alternatively, those new arguments do not show
`
`error because the Decision explains why those differences are not small, but
`
`rather, are “prominent features that contribute to the overall visual
`
`impression of the claimed design.” Dec. 13 (citing Prelim. Resp. 25–35); see
`
`id. at 13–17 (anticipation analysis, explaining in detail why 2015 ATS
`
`Coupe does not anticipate the properly construed design patent claim).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`
`
`Petitioner does not show that the Board misapplied “the correct legal
`
`test” or committed some other error that compels a finding that “the 2015
`
`ATS fender design creates substantially the same” overall “visual impression
`
`as the claimed design.” Req. Reh’g. 11–12. The Decision highlighted some
`
`of the prominent features that distinguish the claimed and prior art designs
`
`(id. at 13–16), but ultimately, declined to institute review based on “the
`
`inadequacy of the analysis provided in the Petition” (id. at 17).
`
`c. Differences between the Claimed and Prior Art Designs
`
`In the Decision, the Board noted that the Petition recognized “‘only
`
`one potential difference between the 2015 ATS Coupe’ and the claimed
`
`design, namely, a ‘minor difference’ related to the ‘bottom crease’ feature,
`
`made of the third and fourth creases’ in the challenged claim.” Dec. 13
`
`(quoting Pet. 55). In the Rehearing Request, however, Petitioner for the first
`
`time acknowledges other differences raised by Patent Owner and addressed
`
`in the Decision. Req. Reh’g. 9–12. We reject Petitioner’s new argument,
`
`which contravenes the argument presented in the Petition that “only one
`
`potential difference” exists. Pet. 55.
`
`In addition, Petitioner wrongly contends that “the Petition addresses
`
`the similarity between the claimed design and the prior art in all three
`
`dimensions.” Req. Reh’g. 14 (citing Pet. 47–49). On that point, Petitioner
`
`contends, the facts of this case are “not analogous to the situation” in which
`
`a “petitioner’s declarant elected to shade only one surface of a three-
`
`dimensional element of the claimed design in order to reduce the comparison
`
`to the prior art to only two dimensions.” Id. at 13–14 (citation omitted). On
`
`the contrary, this case presents a strikingly similar situation.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`
`
`The Petition advances “an overly-general approach that obscures the
`
`design without the required analysis.” Prelim. Resp. 1. Nowhere is that more
`
`evident than in the shading Petitioner adds to its reproduction of Figure 3
`
`from the ’341 patent. Pet. 3; Req. Reh’g. 4. Petitioner shades in purple two
`
`surface planes (as if they were one) and shades in blue three additional
`
`surface planes (as if they were one). Pet. 3; Req. Reh’g 4. Petitioner then
`
`advances, as anticipatory, cropped versions of the 2015 ATS Coupe fender
`
`design that plainly lack those five surface planes. Pet. 47 (reproducing
`
`cropped versions of Exhibit 1008). Reducing five surface planes to two, by
`
`shading one area blue and another purple (Pet. 3; Req. Reh’g. 4) is
`
`comparable to selectively shading “only one surface of a three-dimensional
`
`element of [a] claimed design in order to reduce the comparison to the prior
`
`art to only two dimensions.” Req. Reh’g. 14.
`
`The Petition also advances a plan view of the claimed design for
`
`comparison to a perspective view of the side of the vehicle disclosed in 2015
`
`ATS Coupe – a circumstance that left the Board “unable to meaningfully
`
`assess whether the ‘full three-dimensionality of the claimed design’ is met
`
`by” the prior art. Dec. 14; see Pet. 48 (comparing a rotated plan view, as
`
`illustrated in Figure 2 of the ’341 patent, to a cropped and flipped side
`
`perspective view of 2015 ATS Coupe); see generally, Pet. 46–58
`
`(anticipation ground, addressing Figure 2 only on page 48).
`
`Petitioner challenges that finding by raising new information in the
`
`Rehearing Request. For example, Petitioner sets forth two new illustrations
`
`that eliminate the plan-view to side-view comparison advanced in the
`
`Petition and discussed in the Decision. Compare, Req. Reh’g. 2, 12 with,
`
`Pet. 48; Dec. 13–14. Petitioner argues, for the first time, “[P]erspective and
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`
`front elevation views of” the 2015 ATS Coupe design anticipate the plan
`
`view illustrated in Figure 2 of the ’341 patent. Req. Reh’g. 13 (citing
`
`Pet. 47–49) (nowhere asserting that argument). Without further analysis,
`
`Petitioner concludes, “It is thus clear that the 2015 ATS would look
`
`substantially the same as the claimed design in plan view as well.” Id.
`
`That new argument represents an attempt to improve or correct the
`
`challenge stated in the Petition. We could not have overlooked or
`
`misapprehended arguments not raised in the Petition. Alternatively, even if
`
`we take account of those new arguments, Petitioner fails to explain
`
`adequately, if at all, why or how the asserted perspective and front elevation
`
`views from 2015 ATS Coupe demonstrate that the prior art fender design
`
`“would look substantially the same as the claimed design in plan view.” Id.
`
`(articulating no persuasive reasons for that position). That argument is
`
`conclusory and unpersuasive.
`
`Petitioner further argues, “Patent Owner never denies” that 2015 ATS
`
`Coupe anticipates Figure 2” (that is, the plan view of the claimed design). Id.
`
`This new argument attempts to circumvent Petitioner’s burden of advancing
`
`information in the Petition sufficient to support trial institution. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) (a petition must include “[a] full statement of the
`
`reasons for the relief requested”). Patent Owner was under no obligation to
`
`file a preliminary response at all, much less undertake to prove that 2015
`
`ATS Coupe is not anticipatory. In any event, as Petitioner acknowledges,
`
`Patent Owner pointed out (correctly, in our view) “that the Petition ‘fails to
`
`address all of the differences’ by not providing a plan view image” of the
`
`asserted prior art design. Req. Reh’g. 13 (quoting Prelim. Resp. 24).
`
`Petitioner loses sight of its own burden to explain sufficiently in the Petition
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`
`how or why the 2015 ATS Coupe design anticipates the claimed design,
`
`including the plan view reflected in Figure 2 of the ’341 patent. See Pet. 48
`
`(Petitioner’s sole attempt, in the Petition, to show how or why the asserted
`
`prior art design anticipates the plan view of the claimed design as illustrated
`
`in Figure 2 of the ’341 patent).
`
`Petitioner directs us to two new exhibits (filed in a different
`
`proceeding) that purportedly show that “Patent Owner’s silence on this point
`
`is deafening.” Req. Reh’g. 13 (citing two exhibits not in the record of this
`
`case). We decline on rehearing to consider exhibits outside the record in this
`
`proceeding or information nowhere cited in the Petition for this proceeding.
`
`For the above reasons, Petitioner does not show error in the finding
`
`“that Petitioner fails to meet its burden of demonstrating that it is more likely
`
`than not that the subject matter of the challenged claim is anticipated by
`
`2015 ATS Coupe.” Dec. 17.
`
`3. Petitioner’s Asserted Rosen Reference
`
`Petitioner’s third rationale for modification of the Decision is that the
`
`Petition identifies a proper Rosen reference. Req. Reh’g. 15. That position
`
`depends on two plainly incorrect propositions, namely, that (1) the Petition
`
`“discern[s[ the correct visual impression created by the patented design as a
`
`whole” and (2) the Board required Petitioner to “reduc[e] the claimed design
`
`to a verbal description.” Id. The record supports neither proposition for
`
`reasons explained in the Decision and discussed above.
`
`The Decision correctly points out, “To meet the threshold showing for
`
`trial institution on these [obviousness] grounds, Petitioner must first identify
`
`‘a reference, a something in existence, the design characteristics of which
`
`are basically the same as the claimed design.’” Dec. 17 (quoting In re Rosen,
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`
`673 F.2d at 391). Where the Petition failed to acknowledge, much less
`
`address, three features that materially contribute to the overall visual
`
`impression created by the claimed design, the Board reasonably determined
`
`that Petitioner also failed to show that 2015 ATS Coupe is a single reference
`
`that creates basically the same visual impression as the claimed design. Id.
`
`at 17–18 (quoting Prelim. Resp. 36 n.4).
`
`The Rehearing Request presents new argument that those three
`
`features represent “slight differences” between the claimed and prior art
`
`designs. Req. Reh’g. 15. Our reasoning above applies with equal force to
`
`this new argument presented for the first time in the Rehearing Request.
`
`Further, even if we consider this new argument, for reasons stated in the
`
`Decision, we find that Petitioner in the Rehearing Request does not show
`
`sufficiently that those differences are “slight” or otherwise establish that
`
`they have no material impact on the overall visual impression created by the
`
`claimed design. Id.; see Dec. 17–18 (discussion of grounds based on
`
`obviousness) (quoting Prelim. Resp. 36 n.4); see id. at 3–17 (explaining, in
`
`the context of the ground based on anticipation, why 2015 ATS Coupe lacks
`
`prominent features that contribute to the overall visual impression created by
`
`the claimed design).
`
`Petitioner does not establish error in the finding that 2015 ATS Coupe
`
`is not a proper Rosen reference. Req. Reh’g. 14–15.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the above reasons, we deny the Rehearing Request.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`
`
`It is
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Rehearing Request for Rehearing of
`
`the Decision Denying Institution of Post-Grant Review is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Barry F. Irwin, P.C.
`Reid Huefner
`IRWIN IP LLC
`birwin@irwinip.com
`rhuefner@irwinip.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Dorothy P. Whelan
`Jennifer J. Huang
`Craig A. Deutsch
`Grace J. Kim
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`whelan@fr.com
`jjh@fr.com
`deutsch@fr.com
`gkim@fr.com
`
`
`
`15
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket