Man Wah v. Raffel - IPR Petition For D643,252

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Man Wah Holdings Limited,
Petitioner
v.
Raffel Systems, LLC,
Patent Owner
Case IPR: IPR2019-00530
Patent No. D643,252
Issued: Aug. 16, 2011
First Named Inventor: Kenneth G. Seidl
Title: Cup Holder
PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW

OF U.S. PATENT NO. D643,252
CONTENTS
I. MANDATORY NOTICES ................................................................................1
A. Real Parties in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)).............................................1
B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .......................................................1
C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ....................................1
D. Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ................................................2
E. Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ...........................................................2
II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING AND IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE 2
A. Standing ..........................................................................................................2
B. Statutory Grounds for Each Claim .................................................................2
III. THE ‘252 PATENT .........................................................................................4
A. Background Of The ‘252 Patent.....................................................................4
B. The Subject Matter Of The ‘252 Patent ..........................................................5
C. Priority Date Of The ‘252 Patent Should Not Be April 25, 2006 ..................7
1. Inconsistent flange sections ....................................................................8
2. Inconsistent linear structure on the outside of the side wall ..................9
3. Inconsistent elements on the bottom wall ..............................................9
4. Missing features on the bottom plan view............................................10
IV. THE PRIOR ART ..........................................................................................12
A. The Priority Date of the ‘252 Patent ............................................................12
B. Proposed Primary Reference Camarota .......................................................12
1. Camarota Qualifies As Prior Art ..........................................................12
2. The Disclosure Of Camarota ................................................................13
i
C. Proposed Primary Reference Seidl ‘836 ......................................................14
1. Seidl ‘836 Qualifies As Prior Art .........................................................14
D. Proposed Secondary Reference DeMars ......................................................16
1. DeMars Qualifies As Prior Art .............................................................16
2. The Disclosure Of DeMars ...................................................................17
E. Proposed Secondary Reference Beckerer ....................................................18
1. Beckerer Qualifies As Prior Art ...........................................................18
2. The Disclosure Of Beckerer .................................................................18
F. Proposed Secondary Reference Bergin ........................................................19
1. Bergin Qualifies As Prior Art ...............................................................19
1. The Disclosure Of Bergin .....................................................................20
G. Proposed Secondary Reference Kaneda .......................................................21
1. Kaneda Qualifies As Prior Art .............................................................21
2. The Disclosure Of Kaneda ...................................................................21
H. Proposed Secondary Reference Bruce .........................................................22
1. Bruce Qualifies As Prior Art ................................................................22
2. The Disclosure Of Bruce ......................................................................22
I. Proposed Secondary Reference Korea .........................................................23
1. Korea Qualifies As Prior Art ................................................................23
2. The Disclosure Of Korea ......................................................................23
V. DESIGNER HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...........................24
VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................24
ii
VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE SOLE CLAIM OF
THE ‘252 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ....................................................30
A. Legal Standard ..............................................................................................30
1. The Primary Reference .........................................................................31
2. Secondary References...........................................................................33
B. Ground 1: The Claim Is Rendered Obvious By Camarota ..........................34
1. Camarota Qualifies As A Primary Reference Because It Provides

“Basically The Same Visual Impression” As The ‘252 Patent ............34
2. Any Remaining Differences Between Camarota And The ‘252

Patent Are De Minimis And Would Have Been Obvious To A
DHOSITA .............................................................................................35
C. Ground 2: The Claim Is Rendered Obvious By Camarota In View Seidl

‘836, DeMars, and Beckerer.........................................................................47
1. Camarota Qualifies As A Primary Reference Because It Provides

2. Seidl ‘836, DeMars, and Beckerer Qualify as a Secondary Reference

as Each Discloses an Ornamental Features That Suggests
Application to Camarota.......................................................................48
3. Any Differences Between Camarota And The ‘252 Patent Are De

Minimis And Would Have Been Obvious To A DHOSITA ...............51
D. Ground 3: The Claim Is Rendered Obvious Over Seidl ‘836 In View of

Bergin ...........................................................................................................60
1. Seidl ‘836 Qualifies As A Primary Reference Because It Provides

2. Any Differences Between Seidl ‘836 And The ‘252 Patent Are De
Minimis And Would Have Been Obvious To A DHOSITA ...............62
3. The Combination Of Seidl ‘836 And Bergin Teaches The Linear

Structure On The Side Wall .................................................................70
iii
E. Ground 4: The Claim Is Rendered Obvious Over Seidl ‘836 In View of
Bruce, Kaneda, Bergin, and Beckerer ..........................................................73
VIII.CONCLUSION ................................................................................................78
iv
Exhibit List
Exhibit Description
1001 U.S. Patent No. D643,252
1002 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. D643,252
1003 Complaint filed for Raffel Systems, LLC v. Man Wah Holdings LTD
Inc et al., Case 2:18-cv-01765 (WIED) on November 8, 2018
1004 U.S. Patent No. D580,233 to Camarota issued on November 11,

2008
1005 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0247836 to Seidl

published on October 25, 2007.
1006 U.S. Patent No. D350,966 to DeMars issued on February 13, 1990
1007 U.S. Patent No. D298,719 to Beckerer, Jr. issued on November 29,
1988
1008 U.S. Patent No. 5,709,429 to Bergin issued on January 20, 1998
1009 Japanese Design Patent No. JP D1122290 to Kaneda published on

September 25, 2001
1010 U.S. Patent No. 7,681,346 to Bruce issued March 23, 2010
1011 Korean Patent Application Publication No. KR 20060114593 to

(“Korea”) published on November 7, 2006.
1012 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/410,547
1013 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/847,823
1014 English Translation of Korean Patent Application Publication No.

KR 20060114593
1015 Declaration by Professor Mingshao Zhang
v
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 321, Petitioner Man Wah Holdings Limited
(“Man Wah” or “Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of the
sole claim of U.S. Patent No. D643,252 (“the ‘252 Patent”) (Ex. 1001), which is
owned by Raffel Systems, LLC ("Raffel" or "Patent Owner"), and cancel that claim
because it is unpatentable in view of prior art patents and printed publications.
I. MANDATORY NOTICES
A. Real Parties in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
The real party-in-interest, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), is Man Wah
Holdings Limited.
B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
The ‘252 patent is presently at issue in the action titled Raffel Systems, LLC v.
Man Wah Holdings LTD Inc et al., Case 2:18-cv-01765 (WIED). A copy of the
complaint filed on November 8, 2018 is provided as Exhibit 0003.
C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel, to which all
correspondence should be addressed.
Lead Counsel Backup Counsel

Hao Tan (Reg. No. 73,711) Shen Wang (Reg. No. 71,847)
ARCH & LAKE LLP ARCH & LAKE LLP
Postal and Hand Delivery Address Postal and Hand Delivery Address
203 N LaSalle Street, Suite 2100 203 N LaSalle Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, Illinois 60601 Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone: (312) 375-9408 Telephone: (636) 235-5390
Facsimile: (312) 614-1873 Facsimile: (312) 614-1873
1
Email: haotan@archlakelaw.com Email: shenwang@archlakelaw.com
D. Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
Please address all correspondence to the lead and backup counsel above.
E. Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
The Office is authorized to charge Deposit Account No. 60-2239 for any
fees required for this Petition, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15,
and for any other required fees.
II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING AND IDENTIFICATION OF

CHALLENGE
A. Standing
Petitioner certifies that the ‘252 Patent is available for IPR. Petitioner is not
barred or estopped from requesting this IPR.
B. Statutory Grounds for Each Claim
Petitioner requests IPR for ‘252 patent in view of the following references:
1 U.S. Patent No. D582,233S. (“Camarota”)
2 U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2007/0247836. (“Seidl ‘836”)
3 U.S. Patent No. D305,966. (“DeMars”)
4 U.S. Patent No. D298,719. (“Beckerer”)
5 U.S. Patent No. 5,709,429 (“Bergin”)
2
6 Japanese Design Patent No. JP D1122164 (“Kaneda”)
7 U.S. Patent No. 7,681,346 (“Bruce”)
8 Korean Patent Publication No. KR2006114593 (“Korea”)
References 1-8 qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) because each of
them was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or
otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the ‘252 patent
on January 31, 2017.
None of the references relied upon in this Petition were before the Examiner
during the prosecution of the ‘252 patent. Thus, this Petition does not present the
same or substantially the same prior art or arguments presented during the
prosecution of the ‘252 patent.
Petitioner requests cancellation of the challenged claim under the following
statutory grounds:
Ground 35 U.S.C. References(s)
1 § 103 Camarota
2 § 103 Camarota in View of Seidl ‘836 and DeMars,

Beckerer
3 § 103 Seidl ‘836 in view of Bergin
4 § 103 Seidl ‘836 in view of Bruce, Kaneda, Bergin, and

Beckerer
3
Section VII demonstrates, for each of the statutory grounds, that there is a
reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Additional explanation and support for each ground is set forth in the expert
declaration of Professor Mingshao Zhang (Exhibit 1015).
III. THE ‘252 PATENT
A. Background Of The ‘252 Patent
The ‘252 patent is a U.S. design patent filed on December 29, 2010 and
assigned U.S. patent application No. 29/382,151 (“the ‘151 application”). See Ex.
1001. The ‘151 application is a continuation of U.S. patent application No.
12/847,823 filed on July 30, 2010, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application
No. 11/410,547 (“the ‘547 application”) filed on April 25, 2006 (now U.S. patent
No. 7,766,293). Id. Accordingly, the ‘151 application claims an earliest domestic
priority date of April 25, 2006 based on the filing date of the ‘547 application which
Petitioner disagrees. The ‘151 application was issued on August 16, 2011 as U.S.
Patent No. D643,252.
The ‘151 application named Kenneth G. Seidl and Michael Burwell as
inventors, and was assigned to Raffel Systems, LLC. Id.
4
B. The Subject Matter Of The ‘252 Patent
The ‘252 patent is titled "[c]up holder" and claims "[t]he ornamental design
for a cup holder, as shown and described." Id. The ‘252 patent incudes eight figures.
The figures are reproduced below:
5
Ex. 1001.
Figures 1-8 depict a first perspective view, a second perspective view, a top
plan view, a bottom plan view, a front elevational view, a rear elevational view, a
left side elevational view, and a right side elevational view of a cup holder design.
Id.
6
The sole claim of the ‘252 patent is discussed in detail in Section VI, Claim
Construction.
C. Priority Date Of The ‘252 Patent Should Not Be April 25, 2006
The ‘252 patent claims an earliest domestic priority date of April 25, 2006
based on the filing date of the ‘547 application. Petitioner asserts that the ‘252 is
not entitled to the filing date of the ‘547 application under 35 U.S.C. § 120. In
particular, Petitioner asserts that the written description of the ‘547 application does
not reasonably convey that the inventors were in possession of the claimed subject
matter as of the earliest domestic priority date of April 25, 2006.
To be entitled to a parent’s effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. §120, a
continuation must comply with the written description requirement. In re Owens, 710
F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “The test for sufficiency of the written description,
which is the same for either a design or a utility patent, has been expressed as
‘whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those
skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of
the filing date.’” Id. (quoting Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336,
1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)). “In the context of design patents, the drawings
provide the written description of the invention. Thus, when an issue of priority arises
under §120 in the context of design patent prosecution, one looks to the drawings of
7
the earlier application for disclosure of the subject matter claimed in the later
application.” Owens, 710 F.3d at 1366 (citations omitted).
1. Inconsistent flange sections
Petitioner asserts that the disclosure of the ‘547 application does not provide
written description support for the flange element claimed in the ‘252 patent. For
example, the flange disclosed by the ‘547 application teaches a smooth and flowing
transition between a first flange section and a second flange section while the flange
element recited in the ‘252 patent claims a hard and sharp transition between the first
flange section and the second flange section.
FIG. 7 of the ‘547 application illustrates a flange having a smooth and flowing
transition between the first flange section and the second flange section. Petitioner
submits that the smooth and flowing transition does not demonstrate possession of
the claimed hard transition recited in exemplary Fig. 1 of the ‘252 patent.
8
2. Inconsistent linear structure on the outside of the side wall
written description support for the linear structure claimed in the ‘252 patent. For
example, the outside of the side wall disclosed by the ‘547 application teaches a
smooth wall free of additional elements while the outside of the side wall recited in
the ‘252 patent claims a linear structure running from the flange to the closed end.
Exemplary Figure 7 of the ‘547 application illustrates the outside of the side
wall having a smooth surface that is free of additional elements. Petitioner submits
that the smooth surface forming the outside of the side wall does not demonstrate
possession of the claimed linear structure recited in exemplary Figure 2 of the ‘252
patent.
3. Inconsistent elements on the bottom wall
written description support for the elements defining the bottom wall as claimed in
9
the ‘252 patent. For example, the bottom wall disclosed by the ‘547 application
teaches a cross, and holes arranged relative to the legs of the cross while the ‘252
patent claims a ring, and a radial slot extending from each hole to the side wall
connected to the holes.
Exemplary Figure 4 of the ‘547 application illustrates the cross and hole
pattern portion of the bottom wall. Petitioner submits that the cross and holes taught
by the ‘547 application do not demonstrate possession of the ring and radial slots
claimed in exemplary Figure 3 of the ‘252 patent.
4. Missing features on the bottom plan view
Petitioner further asserts that the disclosure of the ‘547 application does not
provide written description support for any of the elements depicted and claimed in
10
Figure. 4 of the ‘252 patent. In particular, Petitioner submits that the ‘547
application does not include a bottom view of the disclosed cup holder.
The above missing features are not shown anywhere in the File histories of
parent applications 11/410,547 and 12/847,823. See generally Ex. 1012 and Ex.
1013. Accordingly, Petitioner asserts that neither of the written description of the
‘547 application nor the written description of the ‘823 application supports or
demonstrates possession of the features claimed in Figure 4 of the ‘252 patent.
For at least these reasons, Petitioner submits that possession of the claimed
design of the ‘252 patent is not shown as of the filing date of the ’547 application or
as of the filing date of the ‘823 application. Accordingly, based on the present
record, the challenged claim is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the ’547
application or the filing date of the ‘823 application. See In re Salmon, 705 F.2d
1579, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“for section 120 to apply, the first application must
11
disclose ‘the invention’ claimed in the second application. With respect to the design
patent involved in this case, those provisions require that the stool design claimed in
the second application must be the same design disclosed in the parent application.”)
(citations omitted).
IV. THE PRIOR ART
A. The Priority Date of the ‘252 Patent
Raffel filed the ‘252 patent on December 29, 2010 and it was assigned U.S.
patent application No. 29/382,151 (“the ‘151 application”). See Ex. 1001. The ‘151
application claims an earliest domestic priority date of April 25, 2006 based on the
filing date of the ‘547 application. However, based on the disclosure of the ‘547
application, Petitioner asserts that the ‘151 application, and the subsequent ‘252
patent, are not entitled to a priority date based on the ‘547 application. Thus, the
priority date for the ‘252 patent can only be December 29, 2010, the filing date of
the ‘151 application. As discussed below, the prior art references relied upon in this
Petition are patented or published before December 29, 2010.
B. Proposed Primary Reference Camarota
1. Camarota Qualifies As Prior Art
Camarota qualifies as prior art because it was patented and publicly
accessible more than one year before the priority date of December 29, 2010 for
the ‘252 patent. See Ex. 1004. Camarota is a U.S. design patent filed on October 9,
12
2007 and assigned application serial No. 29/292,351. Id. Camarota was patented
on November 11, 2008 which is more than one year before the priority date
December 29, 2010 for the ‘252 patent. Id. Thus, Camarota qualifies as prior art
for the ‘252 patent.
2. The Disclosure Of Camarota
Camarota is titled “Combined Beverage Container Holder and Mounting
Ring” and includes a single claim directed to “[t]he ornamental design of a combined
beverage container holder and mounting ring, as shown and described.” Id.
Camarota includes 19 figures of which: Figures 1-7 illustrate views of the container
holder and mounting ring, Figures 8-13 illustrate views of the mounting ring, and
Figures 14-19 illustrate view of the container holder.
See Ex. 1006.
13
As shown above in Figure 14, Camarota recites and depicts an elevated view
of a beverage container, and in dashed lines, a representative container, such as a
cup. Figure 1 of Camarota further discloses a mounting ring extending away from
an open end of the container holder. Petitioner submits a brief description under
the belief that it may be "helpful to point out . . . various features of the claimed
design as they relate to the . . . prior art." Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.,
543 F.3d 665, 680 (Fed. Cir. 2008). For example, Camarota discloses a beverage
container holder that includes a side wall closed by a bottom wall and having an
open end defining a flange sized to receive the representative container.
Camarota further discloses a linear structure aligned along the side wall and
extending away from the flange disposed at the open end of the container holder.
C. Proposed Primary Reference Seidl ‘836
1. Seidl ‘836 Qualifies As Prior Art
Seidl ‘836 qualifies as prior art because it was published and publicly
accessible before the effective filing date of December 29, 2010 of the ‘252 patent.
See Ex. 1005. Moreover, because the ‘547 application does not provide written
description support for the claims of the ‘252 patent as required under 35 U.S.C.
§120, the ‘547 application cannot be the basis of a claim for priority for the ‘252
patent. Because Seidl ‘836, which is also based on the ‘547 application, was
14
published more than one year before the December 29, 2010 filing date of the ‘151
application, Seidl ‘836 is prior art to the ’151 application and the ‘252 patent.
Seidl ‘836, as discussed in paragraph [0041] and illustrated in Figure 7,
discloses an exemplary embodiment of a lighted cup holder 300 in which a flange
302 of the cup holder body 304 includes an expanded section 306. Id. The expanded
section 306 of the flange 302 includes a control switch 308 for a massage mechanism
of a seating arrangement, and a USB port 310. Id.
15
Similarly, Figure 3 discloses the cross structure and holes formed in a bottom
wall 128 that cooperates with a side wall, such as cup holder body 118, to define a
cup holding receptacle 132. Id.
D. Proposed Secondary Reference DeMars
1. DeMars Qualifies As Prior Art
DeMars qualifies as prior art because it was published and publicly accessible
before the effective filing date of December 29, 2010 for the ‘252 patent. See Ex.
1006. DeMars is a U.S. design patent filed on March 26, 1987 and assigned
application serial No. 29/31,387. Id. DeMars was patented on February 13, 1990
which is more than one year before the priority date December 29, 2010 for the ‘252
patent. Id. Thus, DeMars qualifies as prior art for the ‘252 patent.
16
2. The Disclosure Of DeMars
DeMars is titled “Drinking Cup of Similar Article,” and claims an ornamental
design for a drinking cup or similar article Id. DeMars includes six figures including
a front elevation, a right side elevation, a rear elevation, a top plan view, a bottom
plan view, and a sectional view.
As shown above in Figure 2, DeMar recites and depicts a side elevation
view of a drinking cup, and Figure 4 depicts a top plan view of the drinking cup.
Id. Petitioner submits a brief description under the belief that it may be "helpful
to point out . . . various features of the claimed design as they relate to the . . .
prior art." Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 680 (Fed. Cir.
2008). For example, in Figure 2, DeMars discloses a drinking cup that includes a
flange extending away from the surface of an outer wall. DeMars, in Figure 4,
further discloses that the flange extends sharply away from the surface of the outer
wall.
17
E. Proposed Secondary Reference Beckerer
1. Beckerer Qualifies As Prior Art
Beckerer qualifies as prior art because it was patented accessible before the
effective filing date of December 29, 2010 for the ‘252 patent. See Ex. 1007.
Beckerer is a U.S. design patent filed on December 23, 1985 and assigned
application serial No. 29/812,454. Id. Beckerer was patented on November 29, 1988
which is more than one year before the priority date December 29, 2010 for the ‘252
patent. Id. Thus, Beckerer qualifies as prior art for the ‘252 patent. Beckerer was
cited in the IDS in the parent Utility Patent Application 11/410,547. (Ex. 1012, page
92). However, Beckerer was not considered by the Examiner of the design
application 29/382,151. Ex. 1002.
2. The Disclosure Of Beckerer
Beckerer is titled “Holder for Bottles, Containers or the like,” and claims an
ornamental design for a holder for bottles, containers or the like, as shown and
described.” Id. Beckerer includes three figures including a top plan view, a side
elevation, and a bottom plan view.
18
As shown above in Figure 1, Beckerer recites and depicts a top plan view
for a holder of bottles, containers or the like. Id. Petitioner submits a brief
description under the belief that it may be "helpful to point out . . . various features
of the claimed design as they relate to the . . . prior art." Egyptian Goddess, Inc.
v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 680 (Fed. Cir. 2008). For example, as shown in
Figure 1, the bottom wall of Beckerer includes a cross structure, and holes
positioned relative to the legs of the cross structure.
F. Proposed Secondary Reference Bergin
1. Bergin Qualifies As Prior Art
Bergin qualifies as prior art because it was patented accessible before the
effective filing date of December 29, 2010 for the ‘252 patent. See Ex. 1008. Bergin
is a U.S. patent filed on April 12, 1996 and assigned application serial No.
08/631,544. Id. Bergin was patented on January 20, 1998 which is more than one
19
year before the priority date December 29, 2010 for the ‘252 patent. Id. Thus, Bergin
qualifies as prior art for the ‘252 patent.
1. The Disclosure Of Bergin
Bergin is titled “cupholder attachment for a seat bracket,” and claims
embodiments of a drink container holder. Id. Bergin includes eight figures detailing
multiple views and different embodiment.
Figs 2 and 3 disclose and depict a support flange 32 extending between
upper and lower flanges 46,. 48. Id. Petitioner submits a brief description under
the belief that it may be "helpful to point out . . . various features of the claimed
design as they relate to the . . . prior art." Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.,
543 F.3d 665, 680 (Fed. Cir. 2008). For example, as shown in Fig. 2 above, the
support flange 32 is a liner structure that extends away from the upper flange
towards a bottom wall or lower end support 38 as described by Bergin. Id.
20
G. Proposed Secondary Reference Kaneda
1. Kaneda Qualifies As Prior Art
Kaneda qualifies as prior art because it was published and accessible before
the effective filing date of December 29, 2010 for the ‘252 patent. See Ex. 1009.
Kaneda is a Japanese design patent published on September 25, 2001 and assigned
application serial No. D1122164. Id. Because Kaneda was published more than one
year before the priority date December 29, 2010 for the ‘252 patent, Kaneda qualifies
as prior art for the ‘252 patent.
2. The Disclosure Of Kaneda
Kaneda is titled “fire prevention hole obturator,” and claims an ornamental
design for fire holes obturator fitted to a cylindrical heat-expandable putty to close
by thermal expansion during a fire. Id. Kaneda further discloses and illustrates a
flange having a first flange section and a second flange section as shown in the figure
reproduced below.
21
H. Proposed Secondary Reference Bruce
1. Bruce Qualifies As Prior Art
Bruce qualifies as prior art because it was patented and published before the
effective filing date of December 29, 2010 for the ‘252 patent. See Ex. 1010. Bruce
is a U.S. patent filed on September 12, 2007 and assigned serial No. 11/854,328.
Bruce published on March 12, 2009 as U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
2009-0064549. Bruce issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,681,346 on March 23, 2010.
Because Bruce was published more than one year before the priority date December
29, 2010 for the ‘252 patent, Bruce qualifies as prior art for the ‘252 patent.
2. The Disclosure Of Bruce
Bruce is titled “advertising apparatus and method,” and claims a new and
useful advertising apparatus including a body portion adapted to be one or both of
connected to or disposed on a support structure accessible for advertising purposes.
Id. Fig. 3A of Shad further discloses and illustrates a flange having a first flange
section and a second flange section.
22
I. Proposed Secondary Reference Korea
1. Korea Qualifies As Prior Art
Korea qualifies as prior art because it was published and accessible before the
effective filing date of December 29, 2010 for the ‘252 patent. See Ex. 1011. Korea
is a Korean patent published on November 7, 2006 and assigned application serial
No. KR20060114593. Id. Because Korea was published more than one year before
the priority date December 29, 2010 for the ‘252 patent, Korea qualifies as prior art
for the ‘252 patent.
2. The Disclosure Of Korea
Korea is titled “cup holder having heating and cooling function and seat
having same,” and claims embodiments of a cup holder a heating and cooling
function. Id. Fig. 9 of Korea further discloses and illustrates a flange having a first
23
flange section and a second flange section where the second flange is formed
according to a control unit 320. Ex. 1011 and Ex. 1014.
V. DESIGNER HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
A Designer Having Ordinary Skill In The Art (DHOSITA) would generally
have had either (i) a degree in Industrial Engineering or Mechanical Engineering
who has taken product design courses or (ii) two years of work experience creating
industrial designs. Ex. 1015, ¶ 20.
VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
In a inter partes review, the challenged claim should be construed 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.
24
37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Because of this rule, for the purpose of this inter partes
review, Petitioner has employed the ordinary and customary meaning construction
of the challenged claim throughout this Petition.
For purposes of this Petition, Petitioner believes that the following written
description points out the various features comprising the overall appearance of
the design claimed in the ‘252 patent as they relate to the prior art: (a) a flange
including a first curved flange section, and a second curved flange section; (b) a
side wall; (c) a bottom portion including a bottom wall having a cross and holes
formed thereon; (d) a linear structure extending between the flange and bottom
wall (e) a perimeter structure including a ring disposed adjacent to the side wall,
and a radial slot extending from each hole towards the side wall; and (f) features
on the outside of the cup holder in the bottom view. Ex. 1015, ¶ 56. Petitioner
purposefully has not provided a detailed verbal description but submits this claim
construction because it may be "helpful to point out . . . various features of the
claimed design as they relate to the . . . prior art." Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa,
Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 680 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
As illustrated below in annotated Fig. 2 below, the ‘252 patent claims a cup
holder including a side wall supporting a flange having a first curved flange
section and a second curved flange section; and a bottom wall cooperating with
the side wall to form the bottom portion. Ex. 1015, ¶ 57.
25
(a)
(b)
(d)
(c)
Ex. 1001, Fig. 2.
holder further including a cross in the center of the bottom wall, four small holes
each connected with a line section such as a slot or groove formed on the bottom
wall; and a ring disposed on the bottom wall adjacent to the side wall. Ex. 1015,
¶ 58.
(c) (e)
Ex. 1001, Fig. 3.
26
holder further including features in the bottom view. The features include five
holes on the outside of the bottom wall, two holes adjacent to the linear structure,
seven dots on the flange including three small dots on first curved flange section,
and four larger dots on the second curved flange section. Ex. 1015, ¶ 59.
(f)
Ex. 1001, Fig. 4.
Petitioner addresses each of these six elements below.
(a) A flange including a first curved flange section and a second
curved flange section
As shown above, the claimed cup holder of the ‘252 patent includes a flange
having a first curved flange section and a second curved flange section. The first
curved flange section has a substantially round shape. Ex. 1015, ¶ 61. The first
curved flange section extends from the rim of the cup holder and surrounds more
27
than half of the periphery of the cup holder. Id. The second curved flange section
separated from the first curved flange section. Id. The second curved flange
section has a wider rim than the first curved flange section. Id. There is a hard and
sharp transition between the first curved flange section and a second curved flange
section. Id.
(b) A side wall
Below the first and second flange sections, the claimed cup holder of the
‘252 patent has a side wall. Ex. 1015, ¶ 62. As shown in Fig. 2 above, the side
wall defines a curved side wall of the cup holder. Id. The side wall ends at the
bottom to be connected with a bottom wall. Id.
(c) A bottom portion including a bottom wall having slots and holes
At the bottom of the cup holder, the claimed cup holder of the ‘252 patent
includes a bottom portion including a bottom wall having a cross and holes formed
thereon, and a radial slot extending from each hole towards the side wall. Ex.
1015, ¶ 63. As shown in Fig. 2 above, the bottom wall has a shorter diameter
compared with the flange including the first and second flange sections. Ex. 1001,
Figs. 1-3. As shown in Fig. 3 above, the cross extends towards the side wall. Id.
Additionally, there are four holes formed in the bottom wall and aligned with the
28
legs of the cross. Id. Fig. 3 further illustrates slots extending radially from each
hole towards the ring and side wall. Id.
(d) A linear structure extending between the flange and bottom
portion
The claimed cup holder of the ‘252 patent has a linear structure extending
between the second curved flange section of the flange and the bottom portion.
Ex. 1015, ¶ 64. As shown in Fig. 2 above, the second curved flange section has a
wider rim than the first curved flange section. Id.
(e) A ring disposed on the bottom wall
In addition to the bottom portion, the claimed cup holder of the ‘252 patent
includes a ring disposed on the bottom wall. Ex. 1015, ¶ 65. As shown in Fig. 3
above, a ring element has a semi-circular shape and aligns with the bottom and
side walls. Id. The ring encompasses the bottom wall and extends adjected to the
side wall. Id.
(f) Holes and dots on the outside of the cup holder in the bottom plan
view
The cup holder of the ‘252 patent, as illustrated in annotated Fig. 4 above,
includes five holes on the outside of the bottom wall, two holes adjacent to the
linear structure, seven dots on the flange including three small dots on first curved
29
flange section, and four larger dots on the second curved flange section. Ex. 1015,
¶ 66.
VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE SOLE

CLAIM OF THE ‘252 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
A. Legal Standard
A claim is unpatentable under § 102 if a single prior art reference discloses all
the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim. Kennametal,
Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015). A reference
can anticipate a claim even if it “does not expressly spell out all the limitations
arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the
reference, would at once envisage the claimed arrangement or combination.” Id.
(internal quotations omitted).
The test for obviousness of a design patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is “whether
the claimed design would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill who
designs articles of the type involved.” Durling, 101 F.3d at 103 (citation omitted). In
assessing obviousness, the Board “must both (1) discern the correct visual impression
created by the patented design as a whole; and (2) determine whether there is a single
reference that creates basically the same visual impression.” High Point Design
LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc., 730 F.3d 1301, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (internal quotations
30
omitted) (emphasis added). “[O]ther references may be used to modify [the primary
reference] to create a design that has the same overall visual appearance as the
claimed design.” Id. at 1311.
1. The Primary Reference
It is important to note that the “basically the same” test does not require that
the designs to be identical. Such a requirement would completely eliminate
obviousness as a basis for invalidity because “if the designs were identical, no
obviousness analysis would be required.” MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter MFG,
LLP, 747 F.3d 1326, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Indeed, the Federal Circuit held that
even if a prior art reference were to lack a key feature, it could still constitute a
primary reference. Id. at 1333, n.3 (noting that the V2 jersey reference ,relied upon
as a secondary reference, could also constitute a primary reference even though “the
ornamental surge stitching truly alters the ‘overall visual appearance’ of the
design.”).
In MRC, the Federal Circuit cited and discussed certain of its previous
decisions involving notably discernible design differences that were still found to be
de minimis:
See Jore Corp. v. Kouvato, Inc., 117 F. App’x 761, 763 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(finding prior art drill bit to be a primary reference despite containing a
smooth cylindrical shaft rather than the grooved hexagonal shaft of the
31
claimed design); In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 1217-18 (CCPA
1981) (finding tweezer design obvious in light of prior art reference that
contained vertical rather than horizontal fluting and straight rather than
curved pincers). Id.
It should also be noted that a single primary prior art reference alone can
render obvious a design patent, if the differences are de minimis. Id. In the
Nalbandian case, the CCPA affirmed a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office
Board of Appeals in which the Board found a design patent to be obvious in view of
a primary reference and certain secondary references. However, the CCPA decided
that “we consider it unnecessary to rely on those [secondary] references” in finding
obviousness. In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d at 1215. The CCPA found that “[t]he
differences in the finger grips of a slightly different shape and the straight, rather
than slightly curved pincers, are de minimis.” Id. at 1217 (emphasis added).
Furthermore, the CCPA found that change from vertical fluting to horizontal
fluting (illustrated below) was “well within the skill of an ordinary designer in the
art to make the modification of the fluting and that it would have been obvious to do
so.” Id. at 1217-18.
32
The CCPA was clear that “[s]uch changes do not achieve a patentably distinct
design.” Id. at 1218. The CCPA’s decision was cited in the 2014 Federal Circuit
MRC decision as properly decided, noting that Nalbandian decision found the
“tweezer design obvious in light of prior art reference that contained vertical rather
than horizontal fluting and straight rather than curved pincers.” MRC, 747 F.3d at
1333.
2. Secondary References
Secondary references may be used to modify the primary reference if the two
are “so related that the appearance of certain ornamental features in one would
suggest the application of those features to the other.” MRC, 747 F.3d at 1334. (Fed.
Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). Note that finding obviousness does not require that
the combined prior art references be identical to the design patent. 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 that the design is
33
patentable.”). The test is whether the “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.” High Point Design LLC. V. Buyers Direct, Inc., 730 F.3d
1301, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (emphasis added).
B. Ground 1: The Claim Is Rendered Obvious By Camarota
1. Camarota Qualifies As A Primary Reference Because It

Provides “Basically The Same Visual Impression” As The ‘252
Patent
The container holder of Camarota provides “basically the same visual
impression” as the cup holder claimed in the ‘252 patent because both references
generally disclose cup holders having a flange at the open end. In particular,
Camarota discloses the following key elements of the design claimed in the ‘252
patent: (a) a flange including a first curved flange section; (b) a side wall; (c) a
bottom portion including a bottom wall; and (e) a ring disposed on the bottom wall.
Demonstratives showing where elements (a), (b), (c), and (e) are located in both
Camarota and in the ‘252 patent are provided in the sections below. Ex. 1015, ¶ 68.
As illustrated below, both Camarota and the ‘252 patent provide basically
the same visual impression in that they both depict a cup holder with a flange
including a first flange section, a side wall, a bottom portion including a bottom
34
wall, and perimeter structure including a ring disposed on the bottom wall. Ex.
1015, ¶ 69.
2. Any Remaining Differences Between Camarota And The ‘252

Patent Are De Minimis And Would Have Been Obvious To A
DHOSITA
As shown above, the differences between Camarota and the ‘252 patent are
(a) the ‘252 patent includes a linear structure extending from the flange to the
bottom portion while Camarota does not have this linear structure; and (b) the
‘252 patent has a radial slot extending from each hole towards the side while
Camarota does not have these radial slots; (c) the ‘252 patent has numerous small
holes and dots formed on the bottom wall while Camarota does not have these
holes; and (d) the ‘252 patent includes a particular flange profile while Camarota
35
does not display the same profile. Ex. 1015, ¶70. However, these slight
differences do not alter the fact that Camarota, either alone or in combination
with Demars and Beckerer, “creates basically the same visual impression” as the
‘252 patent. Id., Ex. 1006, FIG. 5, and Ex. 1007, FIGS. 1 and 3.
It is worth reiterating that the "basically the same" test does not require
that the designs to be identical. Such a requirement would completely eliminate
obviousness as a basis for invalidity because "if the designs were identical, no
obviousness analysis would be required." MRC, 747 F.3d at 1333. Indeed, even
when looking at the design created by the combination of a primary prior art
reference with a secondary prior art reference, "the mere fact that there are
differences over the prior art structures is not alone sufficient to justify a holding
that the design is patentable." In re Lamb, 286 F.2d at 611. The seminal
Nalbandian case and the differences noted in that case between the claimed
design and the single, primary reference relied upon by the C.C.P.A. to find
obviousness are instructive.
36
In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d at 1215.
In the Nalbandian case, the C.C.P.A found that "[t]he differences in the
finger grips of a slightly different shape and the straight, rather than slightly
curved pincers, are de minimis." In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d at 1217 (emphasis
added). In addition, the CCPA found that change from vertical fluting to
horizontal fluting was "well within the skill of an ordinary designer in the art to
make the modification of the vertical grooves and that it would have been obvious
to do so." Id. at 1217-18. Based on these findings, the C.C.P.A. did not even need
to resort to a secondary reference. Id. at 1215.
Similarly, as discussed below, the slight differences between Camarota and
the ‘252 patent are de minimis.
a. Adding a Linear Structure Between the Flange and the

Bottom Wall would have been De Minimis
The cup holder of the ‘252 patent shows a linear structure extending away
from the flange towards the bottom portion. A DHOSITA would recognize that
the linear structure illustrated in Figures 2 and 4 represent a functional element
providing a mechanical and/or electrical connection between the bottom portion
and the flange. Ex. 1015, ¶ 71. For example, a DHOSITA would recognize that the
slot could have at least one of following functions: first, holding the cap in place
37
when installed, and second, providing channel/housing for wires from the bottom
of the cup holder to controls on the flange. Ex. 1015, ¶ 71.
The addition of the linear structure to provide an electrical or mechanical
connection represents a modification that is well within the capabilities of a
DHOSITA. For example, as disclosed in Figs. 2 and 3 of Bergin, a support flange
32 extends between upper and lower flanges 46, 48. See Ex. 1008.
Accordingly, it would have been a de minimis change that is well within
the capabilities of a DHOSITA to include linear structure that provides a
mechanical and/or electrical connection between the flange and the bottom
portion. Ex. 1015, ¶ 73. For example, as discussed in Bergin, adding a mounting
38
assembly including a support flange attached to the exterior of the receptacle wall
can be used for mounting the cup holder. Id.
Additionally, including the linear structure would represent obvious design
modification in light of the mounting ring structure depicted in Camarota. Ex.
1015, ¶74. For example, FIG. 1 of Camarota depicts a mounting ring (1) positioned
adjacent to the flange (2) and supported by the side wall (3). Ex. 1004. It would
be an obvious design choice to modify and extend the mounting ring (1) towards
the bottom wall in order to provide additional support similar to the linear structure
(1a) shown in Fig. 2. Ex. 1015, ¶ 74.
For all of these reasons, it would have been a de minimis change to modify
the mounting ring form a linear structure and/or to include a linear structure. Ex.
1015, ¶ 75. For example, the structural support provided by the linear structure
would be well-understood by a DHOSITA making the modification an obvious
design choice. Id. Similarly, extending the existing mounting ring to provide
39
additional structure support would be well-understood by a DHOSITA making the
modification an obvious design choice. Id. Accordingly, incorporation of a linear
structure represents an obvious design choice to the DHOSITA and would not
materially alter the overall visual impression of the container holder of Camarota.
Id. Thus, this design change is less than the design changes found to be de minimis
in the Nalbandian case. Id.
b. Adding A Radial Slot Extending From Each Hole

Towards the Side Wall Would Have Been De Minimis
The cup holder of the ‘252 patent includes a radial slot extending away
from each of the holes formed in the bottom wall relative to the legs of the cross.
Adding the radial slots aligned with the holes on the bottom wall of Camarota
would have been a de minimis change that would have been obvious to a
DHOSITA. Ex. 1015, ¶ 76.
A DHOSITA would have known that a cup holder may include one or more
functional elements such as holes and grooves to drain and direct liquids. Ex. 1015,
¶77. For example, a cross and holes pattern (a) is shown in FIG. 4 (reproduced
below) of the Seidl ‘836 patent application. Id. and Ex. 1005. Similarly, Beckerer
discloses a cross and hole pattern at the center of the round bottom wall of the cup
holder. See Ex. 1007. A DHOSITA would recognize that these cross and hole
40
patterns are provided for functional reasons related to liquid drainage within the
cup holder and not merely the design features of the pattern. Ex. 1015, ¶77.
Moreover, a DHOSITA would understand that additional elements may be
incorporated into the cross and hole pattern to further drain and direct liquids. Ex.
1015, ¶78. For example, adding a radial slot extending from each hole towards
the side wall would be a de minimis change that represents an obvious design
choice for a DHOSITA attempting to manage drainage in a cup holder. Ex. 1015,
¶ 78.
Accordingly, incorporation of a radial slot extending away from each of the
holes represents an obvious design choice to the DHOSITA and would not
Id. Thus, this design change is less than the design changes found to be de minimis
in the Nalbandian case. Ex. 1015, ¶ 79.
41
c. Adding Holes and Dots In The Center Of The Round
Bottom Wall Would Have Been De Minimis
The cup holder of the ‘252 patent, as illustrated in annotated Fig. 4 below,
¶80. Adding such holes and dots on the round bottom wall of Camarota would
have been a de minimis change that would have been obvious to a DHOSITA. Id.
(f)
¶81. For example, a cross is shown in FIG. 4 (reproduced below) of the Seidl ‘836
patent application. Ex. 1015, ¶ 81; and Ex. 1005. Similarly, Fig. 1 (reproduced
below) of Beckerer discloses that there is a cross at the center of the round bottom
wall of the cup holder. See Ex. 1007.
42
Accordingly, it would have been a de minimis change to add any number
of dots or holes on the bottom wall the cup holder. Including features such as dots
and holes would have been an obvious design modification to a DHOSITA. Ex.
1015, ¶82. In particular, this change would have been an obvious modification for
a number of reasons such as: (1) Camarota teaches a round feature formed on the
bottom wall in FIG. 18, and thus already teaches that a cup holder can have features
on the bottom wall. Ex. 1015, ¶82. This change is well known to a DHOSITA, for
example, Seidl ‘836 discloses that “the side wall 126 and bottom wall 128 may
include one or more slots or holes therethrough.” Ex. 1015, ¶ 82. Thus, adding
five holes in the center of the round bottom wall and a few dots below the first
flange section and four dots below the second flange section, or in any other pattern
or arrangement to the cup holder of Camarota would have been a de minimis
change. Id.
43
These modifications are well known to DHOSITAs. Id. The difference here
involves merely adding the cross and holes on the bottom wall, especially when a
DHOSITA would understand that there are functional reasons or other
immediately apparent and obvious design reasons to do so. Ex. 1015, ¶83. This
design change does not alter any existing elements of the original design. Id.
Thus, this design change is less than the design changes found to be de minimis in
the Nalbandian case. Id.
d. Changes To The Flange to Accommodate Functional

Elements Would Have Been De Minimis
The second curved flange feature of the ‘252 and the extended flange of
DeMars represent obvious modifications of an extended flange. Ex. 1015, ¶84. A
DHOSITA would understand that configuration of the extended flange could be
influenced by functional considerations. For example, the extended flange (a) of
DeMars shown in Fig. 4 includes no additional elements and extends partially
around the cup. Ex. 1015, ¶84.
44
In another example, Fig. 3A of Bruce discloses an extended flange (a)
that extends approximately halfway around the open end and includes a curved
element carried by an upper surface.
45
Similarly, Kaneda is directed to a fire prevention hole obturator discloses
an extended flange (a) that includes extends more than halfway around the open
end.
Additionally, Korea is directed to a cup holder having heating and
cooling function. The cup holder of Korea includes an extended flange (a) that
incorporates controls such as the operations unit/control panel 320. See Ex.
1011, FIG. 9 and Ex. 1014.
Accordingly, a DHOSITA would recognize that well-understood
alterations in the size and coverage afforded by the extended flange may be
implemented. Ex. 1015, ¶88. For example, depending on the size and/or
functionality of a control unit such as the operations unit 320, a DHOSITA
would know to modify the size of the overall flange to accommodate the unit.
Id. Thus, changes to the size and configuration of the extended flange represent
obvious modifications are de minimis to the overall design. Id.
46
C. Ground 2: The Claim Is Rendered Obvious By Camarota In View
Seidl ‘836, DeMars, and Beckerer
1. Camarota Qualifies As A Primary Reference Because It

Patent
The container holder of Camarota provides “basically the same visual
impression” as the cup holder claimed in the ‘252 patent because both references
generally disclose cup holders having a flange at the open end. Ex. 1015, ¶ 89. In
particular, Camarota discloses the following key elements of the design claimed in
the ‘252 patent: (a) a flange including a first curved flange section; (b) a side wall;
(c) a bottom portion including a bottom wall; and (e) a ring disposed on the bottom
wall. Demonstratives showing where elements (a), (b), (c), and (e) are located in
both Camarota and in the ‘252 patent are provided in the sections below. Ex. 1015,
¶ 89.
As illustrated below, both Camarota and the ‘252 patent provide basically
the same visual impression in that they both depict a cup holder with a flange
including a first flange section, a side wall, a bottom portion including a bottom
wall, and perimeter structure including a ring disposed on the bottom wall. Ex.
1015, ¶ 90.
47
2. Seidl ‘836, DeMars, and Beckerer Qualify as a Secondary
Reference as Each Discloses an Ornamental Features That
Suggests Application to Camarota
The cup holder of ‘836 Seidl includes ornamental features that suggest
application to the container holder of Camarota. For example, both Seidl ‘836 and
the ‘252 patent depict a cup holder with a flange including first and second curved
sections, a side wall, a bottom portion including a bottom wall having a cross and
holes formed thereon, and perimeter structure including a ring disposed on the
bottom wall. Ex. 1015, ¶ 91.
48
flange
flange
side side
wall wall
bottom
bottom portion
portion
The drinking cup of DeMars includes additional ornamental features related
to the flange that suggest application to the container holder of Camarota. Ex. 1015
¶ 92. Similarly, the bottle holder of Beckerer includes ornamental features related to
the bottom portion that suggest application to the container holder of Camarota. Ex.
1015 ¶ 92. When these ornamental features are applied to the container holder of
Camarota the resulting includes all of the elements and provides “basically the same
visual impression” as the cup holder claimed in the ‘252 patent. Id.
49
As illustrated in Figs. 2 and 4 of DeMars, the drinking cup includes a flange
(a) having an extended flange portion (b) extending away from a side wall. Ex. 1015
¶ 93. In particular, the extended flange portion (b) curves around the open end of
the cup and extends away from the side wall of the cup. Ex. 1015 ¶ 93. When the
features of DeMars are applied to the container holder of Camarota, the resulting
design includes a flange having a first curved flange section and a second curved
flange section as claimed in the ‘252 patent. Ex. 1015 ¶ 93.
50
As illustrated in Fig. 1 of Beckerer, the bottle holder depicts a bottom portion
having a ring (i), a bottom wall including a cross (ii) and holes (iii) formed thereon.
Ex. 1015 ¶ 94. Fig. 3 of the ‘252 patent is included and annotated to identify the
corresponding elements. In particular, the cross includes legs extending across the
bottom wall, and the hold are formed relative to the legs of the cross. When the
features of Beckerer are applied to the container holder of Camarota, the resulting
design includes a bottom portion a ring adjacent to the side wall, a cross and holes
as claimed in the ‘252 patent. Ex. 1015 ¶ 94.
3. Any Differences Between Camarota And The ‘252 Patent Are

De Minimis And Would Have Been Obvious To A DHOSITA
As shown above, the differences between Camarota and the ‘252 patent are
(a) the ‘252 patent includes a linear structure extending from the flange to the
bottom portion while Camarota does not have this linear structure; (b) the ‘252
patent has a radial slot extending from each hole towards the side while Camarota
does not have these radial slots; and (c) the ‘252 patent has four small holes on
the bottom wall while Camarota does not have these holes. Ex. 1015, ¶95.
However, these slight differences do not alter the fact that Camarota, either alone
or in combination with Demars and Beckerer, “creates basically the same visual
impression” as the ‘252 patent. Id.
51
52
Similarly, as discussed below, the slight differences between Camarota and
a. Adding a Linear Structure Between the Flange and the

Bottom Wall would have been De Minimis
The cup holder of the ‘252 patent shows a linear structure extending away
from the flange towards the bottom portion. A DHOSITA would recognize that
the linear structure illustrated in Figures 2 and 4 represent a functional element
providing a mechanical and/or electrical connection between the bottom portion
and the flange. Ex. 1015 ¶ 96.
53
The addition of the linear structure to provide an electrical or mechanical
connection represents a modification that is well-known to a DHOSITA. Ex. 1015
¶ 97. For example, as disclosed in Figs. 2 and 3 of Bergin, a support flange 32
extends between upper and lower flanges 46, 48. See Ex. 1008.
Accordingly, it would have been a de minimis change that is well-known to
a DHOSITA to include linear structure that provides a mechanical and/or electrical
connection between the flange and the bottom portion. Ex. 1015 ¶ 98. For example,
as discussed in Bergin, adding a mounting assembly including a support flange
attached to the exterior of the receptacle wall can be used for mounting the cup
holder. Id.
54
Additionally, including the linear structure would represent obvious design
modification in light of the mounting ring structure in Camarota. Ex. 1015 ¶ 99.
In Camarota, FIG. 1 of depicts a mounting ring (1) positioned adjacent to the
flange (2) and supported by the side wall (3). It would be an obvious design choice
to modify and extend the mounting ring (1) towards the bottom wall in order to
provide additional support similar to the linear structure (1a) shown in Fig. 2. Ex.
1015 ¶ 99.
For all of these reasons, it would have been a de minimis change to modify
the mounting ring to form the claimed linear structure and/or to include a linear
structure. Ex. 1015 ¶100. For example, the structural support provided by the
linear structure would be well-understood by a DHOSITA making the
modification an obvious design choice. Id. Similarly, extending the existing
mounting ring to provide additional structure support would be well-understood
by a DHOSITA making the modification an obvious design choice. Id.
55
Accordingly, incorporation of a linear structure represents an obvious design
choice to the DHOSITA and would not materially alter the overall visual
impression of the container holder of Camarota. Id. Thus, this design change is
less than the design changes found to be de minimis in the Nalbandian case. Id.
b. Adding A Radial Slot Extending From Each Hole

Towards the Side Wall Would Have Been De Minimis
The cup holder of the ‘252 patent shows a radial slot extending away from
each of the holes formed in the bottom wall relative to the legs of the cross. Adding
the radial slots aligned with the holes on the bottom wall of Camarota would have
been a de minimis change that would have been obvious to a DHOSITA. Ex. 1015,
¶101.
¶102. For example, a cross and holes pattern (a) is shown in FIG. 4 (reproduced
below) of the Seidl ‘836 patent application. Ex. 1015, ¶102 and Ex. 1005.
Similarly, Beckerer discloses a cross and hole pattern at the center of the round
bottom wall of the cup holder. See Ex. 1007. A DHOSITA would recognize that
these cross and hole patterns are provided for functional reasons related to liquid
drainage within the cup holder and not merely the design features of the pattern.
Ex. 1015, ¶ 0102.
56
Similarly, a DHOSITA would understand that additional elements may be
incorporated into the cross and hole pattern to further drain and direct liquids. Ex.
1015, ¶103. For example, adding a radial slot extending from each hole towards
the side wall would be a de minimis change that represents an obvious design
choice for a DHOSITA attempting to manage drainage in a cup holder. Id.
Accordingly, incorporation of a radial slot extending away from each of
the holes represents an obvious design choice to the DHOSITA and would not
Ex. 1015, ¶ 104. Thus, this design change is less than the design changes found to
be de minimis in the Nalbandian case. Ex. 1015, ¶104.
c. Adding Holes and Dots In The Center Of The Round

Bottom Wall Would Have Been De Minimis
57
The cup holder of the ‘252 patent, as illustrated in annotated Fig. 4 below,
¶105. Adding such holes and dots on the round bottom wall of Camarota would
have been a de minimis change that would have been obvious to a DHOSITA. Ex.
1015, ¶105.
(f)
¶106. For example, a cross is shown in FIG. 4 of the Seidl ‘836 patent application.
Ex. 1015, ¶ 106 and Ex. 1005. Similarly, Beckerer discloses that there is a cross
at the center of the round bottom wall of the cup holder. See Ex. 1007.
Accordingly, it would have been a de minimis change to add any number
of dots or holes on the bottom wall the cup holder. Ex. 1015, ¶107. Including
58
features such as dots and holes would have been an obvious design modification
to a DHOSITA. Id. In particular, this change would have been an obvious
modification for a number of reasons such as: (1) Camarota teaches a round feature
formed on the bottom wall in FIG. 18, and thus already teaches that a cup holder
can have features on the bottom wall. Ex. 1015, ¶ 107. This change is well known
to a DHOSITA, for example, Seidl ‘836 Application discloses that “the side
wall 126 and bottom wall 128 may include one or more slots or holes
therethrough.” Ex. 1015, ¶ 107. Thus, adding five holes in the center of the round
bottom wall and a few dots below the first flange section and four dots below the
second flange section, or in any other pattern or arrangement to the cup holder of
Camarota would have been a de minimis change. Id.
These modifications are well known to DHOSITAs. Id. The difference here
involves merely adding the cross and holes on the bottom wall, especially when a
immediately apparent and obvious design reasons to do so. Ex. 1015, ¶108. This
Thus, this design change is less than the design changes found to be de minimis in
the Nalbandian case. Id.
59
D. Ground 3: The Claim Is Rendered Obvious Over Seidl ‘836 In
View of Bergin
1. Seidl ‘836 Qualifies As A Primary Reference Because It

Patent
Seidl ‘836 provides “basically the same visual impression” as the design
claimed in the ‘252 patent because it discloses the following key elements of the
design claimed in the ‘252 patent: (a) a flange including a first curved flange section
and a second curved flange section; (b) a side wall; (c) a bottom portion including a
bottom wall having a cross and holes formed thereon; and (e) perimeter structure
including a ring disposed on the bottom wall. Demonstratives showing where
elements (a), (b), (c), and (e) are located in both Seidl ‘836 and in the ‘252 patent
are provided in the sections below. Ex. 1015, ¶109.
As illustrated below, both Seidl ‘836 and the ‘252 patent depict a cup
holder with a flange including first and second curved sections, a side wall, a
bottom portion including a bottom wall having a cross and holes formed
thereon, and perimeter structure including a ring disposed on the bottom wall.
Ex. 1015, ¶110.
60
flange
flange
side side
wall wall
bottom
bottom portion
portion
ring
radial
slots ring
61
2. Any Differences Between Seidl ‘836 And The ‘252 Patent Are
De Minimis And Would Have Been Obvious To A DHOSITA
As shown above, the differences between Seidl ‘836 and the ‘252 patent
are (1) the flange in ‘252 patent has a hard and sharp transition between the first
curved flange section and a second curved flange section while the flange in Seidl
‘836 does not have this; (2) the bottom wall of ‘252 patent has radial slots
connected while Seidl ‘836 does not have these radial slots; and (3) the ‘252
patent has holes and dots on the bottom wall outside of the cup holder while Seidl
‘836 does not show the bottom view; and (4) the ‘252 patent has a linear structure
under the second curved flange section while Seidl ‘836 does not have this linear
structure. Ex. 1015, ¶111. However, these slight differences do not alter the fact
that Seidl ‘836 "creates basically the same visual impression" as the ‘252 patent.
Id.
62
63
Similarly, as discussed below, the slight differences between Seidl ‘836 and
a. Changing the turning angle between the first curved

flange section and the second curved flange section in
the flange Would Have Been De Minimis
The cup holder of the ‘252 patent shows a flange including a hard transition
angle between the first curved flange section and the second curved flange section.
Ex. 1015, ¶ 112. Changing the turning angle of the second curved flange section
of Seidl ‘836 would have been a de minimis change that would have been obvious
to a DHOSITA. Ex. 1015, ¶ 112.
A DHOSITA would have known that a cup holder may include a second
flange section. Ex. 1015, ¶ 113. Further, the turning angle can be changed under
at the time when the invention was made. Ex. 1015, ¶ 113. As disclosed in Fig.
3A of Bruce, a structure 120 attached with the cup holder 110 has a flange section
that includes a hard transition between the first curved flange section and the
second curved flange section. See Ex. 1010.
64
Hard
transition
Fig. 3A of Bruce ‘346, Ex. 1010.
Accordingly, it would have been a de minimis change to change the turning
angle between the first curved flange section and the second curved flange section
to the cup holder. Ex. 1015, ¶114. This would have been an obvious design
modification to a DHOSITA. Ex. 1015, ¶ 114. First, Seidl ‘836 has a first flange
section and a second flange section, thus, Seidl ‘836 already teaches that a cup
holder can have two flange sections. Id. Modifying the flange of Seidl ‘836 based
on the disclosure of Bruce represents a change that is well-known within the skill
of a DHOSITA. Id. For example, as shown in FIG, 3A of Bruce, it is a well-
known design choice to utilize a flange having different shaped sections and/or
profiles. Ex. 1010. Fig. 3A. Similarly, Kaneda discloses a flange that includes
65
different sections and/or profiles with a hard transition between the different flange
sections. Ex. 1009. Fig. 4.
hard
transition
Annotated Fig. 4. of Kaneda
This fact was well known to DHOSITAs. Ex. 1015, ¶115. The difference
here involves merely changing the transition angle between the first and second
flange section, especially when a DHOSITA would understand that there are
functional reasons or other immediately apparent and obvious design reasons to
do so. Ex. 1015, ¶ 115. This design change does not alter any existing elements of
the original design. Id. Thus, this design change is less than the design changes
found to be de minimis in the Nalbandian case. Id.
66
b. Adding Additional Hole and Radial Slots To The
Bottom Wall of The Cup Holder Would Have Been De
Minimis
The bottom wall of the cup holder of the ‘252 patent has four radial slots.
Adding such radial slots on the round bottom wall of Seidl ‘836 would have been
a de minimis change to a DHOSITA. Ex. 1015, ¶116.
A DHOSITA would have known that a cup holder may include a few holes
and grooves to drain water. Ex. 1015, ¶117. For example, four holes and radial
groves are shown on the bottom wall of the cup holder in FIG. 1 of Beckerer. Id.
and Ex. 1007, FIG. 1.
Accordingly, it would have been a de minimis change to add radial slots to
the round bottom wall of the cup holder. First, Seidl ‘836 has three holes shown in
the bottom wall in FIG. 4, thus, Seidl ‘836 already teaches that a cup holder can
have holes on the bottom wall. Ex. 1015, ¶118. Second, as discussed in Seidl ‘836,
“the side wall 126 and bottom wall 128 may include one or more slots or holes
therethrough.” Ex. 1005, ¶ 0032. Thus, adding an additional hole and radial slots
to the bottom of the cup holder of Seidl ‘836 would have been a de minimis change.
Ex. 1015, ¶118.
This fact was well known to DHOSITAs. Ex. 1015, ¶119. The difference
here involves merely adding radial slots on the bottom wall, especially when a
67
immediately apparent and obvious design reasons to do so. Ex. 1015, ¶ 119. This
Thus, this design change is less than the design changes found to be de minimis
in the Nalbandian case. Id.
c. Adding Holes and Dots To The Bottom Wall and flange

Outside of The Cup Holder Would Have Been De
Minimis
The cup holder of the ‘252 patent shows holes and dots on the bottom wall
outside of the cup holder. Ex. 1001, Fig. 4. Adding such dots and holes on the
round bottom wall of Seidl ‘836 would have been a de minimis change to a
DHOSITA. Ex. 1015, ¶120.
A DHOSITA would have known that a cup holder may include a few holes
and grooves to drain water. Ex. 1015, ¶121. The bottom wall in Seidl ‘836 shows
three holes inside of the cup holder. Id. and Ex. 1005, FIG. 4. Further, four holes
are shown on the outside of the cup holder in Beckerer. Ex. 1015, ¶121 and Ex.
1007, Fig. 3. As disclosed in Figs. 1 and 3 of Beckerer, the four holes are shown
both in the inside and on the outside of the round bottom wall of the cup holder.
Ex. 1015, ¶121 and Ex. 1007.
68
four holes four holes
inside outside
Annotated Figs. 1 and 3 of Beckerer
Accordingly, it would have been a de minimis change to add holes to the
round bottom wall outside of the cup holder. Ex. 1015, ¶122. This would have
been an obvious design modification to a DHOSITA. Id. First, Seidl ‘836 has
three holes shown in the the bottom wall in FIG. 4, thus, Seidl ‘836 already teaches
that a cup holder can have holes on the bottom wall. Ex. 1005. FIG. 3. Second, as
discussed in the Seidl ‘836, “the side wall 126 and bottom wall 128 may include
one or more slots or holes therethrough.” Ex. 1005, ¶ 0032. Thus, adding a first
hole in the center and a second hole to the bottom of the cup holder of Seidl ‘836
would have been a de minimis change. Ex. 1015, ¶122.
Further, in Seidl ‘836, the cup holder 106 includes a light sensitive element
124. Ex. 1015, ¶123 and Ex. 1005, FIG. 3. “The light-sensitive element 124 is
attached to, and extends through the flange 136 at the top end 130 of the body 118
69
of the cup holder 106, in such a manner that a light sensitive surface 140 of the
light-sensitive element 124 is exposed to ambient light impinging upon an upper
surface of the flange 136.” Ex. 1005, ¶ 30. Thus, Seidl ‘836 inherently teaches a
functional element, the light-sensitive element 124, disposed in the flange 136. It
would be a de minimis change to add more light-sensitive elements in the flange,
which would be illustrated as dots in the flange in the bottom view of Fig. 4 of the
‘252 patent. Ex. 1015, ¶123. In addition, it would be a de minimis change to add
functional elements such as screw/screw holes in the flange, which would also be
illustrated as dots in the flange in the bottom view of Fig. 4 of the ‘252 patent. Ex.
1015, ¶ 123.
This fact was well known to DHOSITAs. Ex. 1015, ¶ 124. The
difference here involves merely adding holes on the bottom wall and dots on the
flange, especially when a DHOSITA would understand that there are functional
reasons or other immediately apparent and obvious design reasons to do so. Ex.
1015, ¶124. This design change does not alter any existing elements of the
original design. Id. Thus, this design change is less than the design changes
found to be de minimis in the Nalbandian case. Id.
3. The Combination Of Seidl ‘836 And Bergin Teaches The

Linear Structure On The Side Wall
70
Both Seidl ‘836 And Bergin are indisputably "so related that the appearance
of certain ornamental features in one would suggest the application of those
features to the other." MRC, 747 F.3d at 1334 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citations omitted);
Ex. 1015, ¶125. Seidl ‘836 And Bergin both relate to cup holder. Ex. 1005, FIG.
6; and Ex. 1008, FIG. 5; and Ex. 1015, ¶ 49. Moreover, Seidl ‘836 And Bergin
both disclose a flange on top of the cup holder, where the flange includes a first
flange section and a second flange section. Ex. 1015, ¶125. Finally, both Seidl
‘836 And Bergin disclose a cup holder to be mounted on a seating structure. Ex.
1015, ¶125.
The cup holder of the ‘252 patent shows a linear structure under the second
curved flange section. It would have been obvious to a DHOSITA to use the linear
structure in Bergin in the design of the primary reference Seidl ‘836. Ex. 1015,
¶126.
71
A DHOSITA would have known that a cup holder may include a second
circular flange section. Ex. 1015, ¶127. Further, a linear feature such as a vertical
ridge or groove or the like can be extended under the second circular flange
section. Id. As disclosed in Bergin, a flange is disposed under the second flange
section and is extended from the top to the bottom of the cup holder. See Ex. 1008.
FIG. 5A.
linear
structure
Annotated FIG. 5A of Bergin
Accordingly, it would have been an insubstantial change to add a linear
fixture under the second circular flange section to the cup holder of Seidl ‘836. Ex.
1015, ¶128. This would have been an obvious design modification to a DHOSITA.
First, Seidl ‘836 has a cup holder including a second flange section, where the cup
72
holder is intended to be installed in a furniture piece. Ex. 1015, ¶128. Second, as
shown in FIG, 5A of Bergin, it is a well-known that a linear structure can be
adapted to engage a seat structure accommodating the cup holder. See Ex. 1008.
Thus, a DHOSITA would add the linear structure in Bergin to Seidl ‘836 to secure
the cup holder with the furniture piece.
The above facts were well-known to DHOSITAs. Ex. 1015, ¶128. The
difference here involves merely adding the linear structure under the second
circular flange section to the bottom of the cup holder, especially when a
immediately apparent and obvious design reasons to do so. Ex. 1015, ¶128.
Thus, Bergin would explicitly teach a DHOSITA to add the linear structure
under the second circular flange of the claimed design in the ‘252 patent.
E. Ground 4: The Claim Is Rendered Obvious Over Seidl ‘836 In

View of Bruce, Kaneda, Bergin, and Beckerer
As discussed above, it would be de minimis to change the turning angle
between the first curved flange section and the second curved flange section in the
flange. However, in the event that changing the turning angle is not found to be de
minimis, Petitioner also provides a combination of references that that explicitly
teaches changing the turning angle. Petitioner incorporates by reference herein
73
Section VII.D, including VIII.D.3, which describes the combination of Seidl ‘836 in
view of Bergin.
Both Seidl ‘836 And Bruce are indisputably "so related that the appearance
of certain ornamental features in one would suggest the application of those
features to the other." MRC, 747 F.3d at 1334 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citations omitted);
Ex. 1015, ¶129. Seidl ‘836 And Bruce both relate to cup holders. Ex. 1005, FIG.
6; and Ex. 1010, FIG. 3A; and Ex. 1015, ¶ 49. Moreover, Seidl ‘836 And Bruce
both disclose a flange on top of the cup holder, where the flange includes a first
flange section and a second flange section. Ex. 1015, ¶129.
The cup holder of the ‘252 patent shows a hard transition between the first
and second curved flange sections. Ex. 1015, ¶ 130. It would have been obvious
to a DHOSITA to use the transition angel in Bruce in the design of the primary
reference Seidl ‘836. Ex. 1015, ¶ 130.
A DHOSITA would have known that a cup holder may include a transition
angel between the first and second flange sections. Ex. 1015, ¶131. Further, the
transition angle can be changed to adapt functional elements in the second circular
flange section. Ex. 1015, ¶132. Bruce specifically teaches that the transition angel
between the first and second flange sections may be a hard transition. See Ex.
1010. FIG. 3A.
74
Hard
transition
Annotated FIG. 3A of Bruce
Thus, Bruce would explicitly teach a DHOSITA to change the transition
angle between the first and second circular flange sections in the cup holder of
Seidl ‘836. Ex. 1015, ¶133.
Further, as discussed above, it would be de minimis to add additional hole
and radial slots to the round bottom wall of the cup holder. Ex. 1015, ¶ 134.
However, in the event that adding additional hole and radial slots is not found to be
de minimis, Petitioner also provides a combination of references that that explicitly
teaches radial slots.
Both Seidl ‘836 And Beckerer are indisputably "so related that the
appearance of certain ornamental features in one would suggest the application of
those features to the other." MRC, 747 F.3d at 1334 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citations
omitted); Ex. 1015, ¶134. Seidl ‘836 And Beckerer both relate to cup holders. Ex.
75
1005, FIG. 6; and Ex. 1010, FIG. 3A; and Ex. 1015, ¶134. Moreover, Seidl ‘836
And Beckerer both disclose that the cup holder includes a bottom portion includes
holes and slots. Ex. 1015, ¶ 134.
The cup holder of the ‘252 patent shows additional hole and radial slots
that are not explicitly disclosed by Seidl ‘836. It would have been obvious to a
DHOSITA to add additional hole and radial slots in Beckerer into the design of
the primary reference Seidl ‘836. Ex. 1015, ¶135.
A DHOSITA would have known that a cup holder may include holes and slots
in view of Seidl ‘836 and Beckerer. Ex. 1015, ¶136. Further, “the side wall 126 and
bottom wall 128 may include one or more slots or holes therethrough.” Ex. 1005, ¶
0032. Beckerer specifically teaches that four holes and radial groves are shown on
the bottom wall of the cup holder in FIG. 1 of Beckerer. Ex. 1007, FIG. 1. See Ex.
1007. FIG. 1.
76
See Ex. 1005. FIG. 4; Ex. 1007. FIG. 1.
Thus, Beckerer would explicitly teach a DHOSITA to add additional hole
and radial slots to the bottom wall of the cup holder of Seidl ‘836 to the claimed
design in the ‘252 patent. Ex. 1015, ¶137.
Similarly, FIG. 3 of Beckerer specifically teaches that four holes and
radial groves are shown on the bottom wall of the cup holder in FIG. 3 of
Beckerer. Ex. 1015, ¶138.
See Ex. 1007. FIG. 3.
Thus, Beckerer would explicitly teach a DHOSITA to add additional
holes and dots to the outside of the cup holder of Seidl ‘836 to the claimed
design in the ‘252 patent. Ex. 1015, ¶138.
77
VIII. CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, there is at least a reasonable likelihood that
Petitioner will prevail in this challenge to the ‘252 patent. Therefore, Petitioner
respectfully requests that the Board grant Petitioner’s Petition and institute inter
partes review of the ‘252 patent.
Date: January 13, 2019 Respectfully submitted,
/ Hao Tan /
Hao Tan, Reg. No. 73,711
Arch & Lake LLP
203 N LaSalle Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel. No. 312.375.9408
Fax No. 312.614.1873
HaoTan@archlakelaw.com
Attorney For Petitioner
78
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
I hereby certify that the foregoing Petition for Inter partes Review of U.S.
Patent No. D643,252 includes the following number of words (as calculated by
Microsoft Word), excluding those in the table of contents, table of authorities,
mandatory notices, certificate of service, certificate of word count, and appendix of
exhibits: 12,691.
/ Hao Tan /
Arch & Lake LLP
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel. No. 312.375.9408
Fax No. 312.614.1873
79
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on January 4, 2019, that a true and correct copy of the Petition
for Inter partes Review of U.S. Patent No. D643,252 was served in its entirety via e-
mail and UPS to the Patent Owner by serving the correspondence address of record
for the ‘252 Patent:
TYLER J. SISK
CASIMIR JONES, S.C.
2275 DEMING WAY STE. 310
MIDDLETON, WI 53562
/ Hao Tan /
Arch & Lake LLP
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel. No. 312.375.9408
Fax No. 312.614.1873
80

Man Wah v. Raffel - IPR Petition For D643,252

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Man Wah v. Raffel - IPR Petition For D643,252

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Man Wah Holdings Limited,

Raffel Systems, LLC,

Case IPR: IPR2019-00530

Patent No. D643,252

Issued: Aug. 16, 2011

First Named Inventor: Kenneth G. Seidl

Title: Cup Holder

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW

I. MANDATORY NOTICES ................................................................................1

A. Real Parties in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)).............................................1

B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .......................................................1

C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ....................................1

D. Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ................................................2

E. Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ...........................................................2

II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING AND IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE 2

B. Statutory Grounds for Each Claim .................................................................2

III. THE ‘252 PATENT .........................................................................................4

A. Background Of The ‘252 Patent.....................................................................4

B. The Subject Matter Of The ‘252 Patent ..........................................................5

1. Inconsistent flange sections ....................................................................8

2. Inconsistent linear structure on the outside of the side wall ..................9

3. Inconsistent elements on the bottom wall ..............................................9

4. Missing features on the bottom plan view............................................10

IV. THE PRIOR ART ..........................................................................................12

A. The Priority Date of the ‘252 Patent ............................................................12

B. Proposed Primary Reference Camarota .......................................................12

1. Camarota Qualifies As Prior Art ..........................................................12

2. The Disclosure Of Camarota ................................................................13

1. Seidl ‘836 Qualifies As Prior Art .........................................................14

D. Proposed Secondary Reference DeMars ......................................................16

1. DeMars Qualifies As Prior Art .............................................................16

2. The Disclosure Of DeMars ...................................................................17

E. Proposed Secondary Reference Beckerer ....................................................18

1. Beckerer Qualifies As Prior Art ...........................................................18

2. The Disclosure Of Beckerer .................................................................18

F. Proposed Secondary Reference Bergin ........................................................19

1. Bergin Qualifies As Prior Art ...............................................................19

1. The Disclosure Of Bergin .....................................................................20

G. Proposed Secondary Reference Kaneda .......................................................21

1. Kaneda Qualifies As Prior Art .............................................................21

2. The Disclosure Of Kaneda ...................................................................21

H. Proposed Secondary Reference Bruce .........................................................22

1. Bruce Qualifies As Prior Art ................................................................22

2. The Disclosure Of Bruce ......................................................................22

I. Proposed Secondary Reference Korea .........................................................23

1. Korea Qualifies As Prior Art ................................................................23

2. The Disclosure Of Korea ......................................................................23

V. DESIGNER HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...........................24

VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................24

A. Legal Standard ..............................................................................................30

1. The Primary Reference .........................................................................31

B. Ground 1: The Claim Is Rendered Obvious By Camarota ..........................34

1. Camarota Qualifies As A Primary Reference Because It Provides

2. Any Remaining Differences Between Camarota And The ‘252

C. Ground 2: The Claim Is Rendered Obvious By Camarota In View Seidl

1. Camarota Qualifies As A Primary Reference Because It Provides

2. Seidl ‘836, DeMars, and Beckerer Qualify as a Secondary Reference

3. Any Differences Between Camarota And The ‘252 Patent Are De

D. Ground 3: The Claim Is Rendered Obvious Over Seidl ‘836 In View of

1. Seidl ‘836 Qualifies As A Primary Reference Because It Provides

3. The Combination Of Seidl ‘836 And Bergin Teaches The Linear