select brands v. sensio - mts brief
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
1/334
DB03/./10004219.1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
SELECT BRANDS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SENSIO, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 13-cv-2108 KHV/GLR
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SENSIO INC.S
MOTION TO STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
Defendant Sensio Inc. submits this memorandum in support of its Motion requesting the
Court to stay all proceedings in this case while the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO)
considers whether to institute trial on Sensios separate Petitions for Inter Partes Review of the
two design patents asserted in this case, U.S. Design Patent No. D669,731 (the 731 patent)
and U.S. Design Patent No. D675,864 (the 864 patent) for the reasons stated herein. (Exs. 1
and 2.) The following section provides background to this request and explains why this Courts
precedent favors a stay in a situation like this one.
I. BACKGROUNDSelect Brands filed a complaint on March 1, 2013, alleging that Sensio infringes the 731
and 864 patents both entitled Multiple Crock Buffett Server. (D.I. 1.) Sensio answered on
July 2, 2013, denying infringing and asserting that the 731 and 864 patents are invalid. (D.I.
7.) Discovery has not yet started and a trial date has not been set.
The 731 and 864 patents are design patents, each containing a single claim shown in the
accompanying figures and described in the specification. By convention only the solid lines in
the figures are claimed. As is the practice in design patents, full or solid lines in the figures show
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15 Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 17
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
2/334
2
DB03/./10004219.1
the elements included in the claim. Whereas, the elements depicted in dashed or broken lines are
not claimed. The specifications of the 731 and 864 patents also explain that the elements
depicted in broken lines are for illustrative purposes only and form no part of the claimed design.
The figures of the 731 and 864 patents mostly contain dashed or broken lines, meaning that
most of the features in the figures are not claimed. Looking at one of four embodiments in the
731 patent, removing the broken lines reveals that Select Brands has claimed some curved
portions of a server bowl. Specifically, figures 1-7 show that a portion of a pair of curved bowl
insert rims, having a particular profile are claimed.
Fig. 1(front perspective view)
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15 Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 17
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
3/334
3
DB03/./10004219.1
Fig. 3
(top view)
Fig. 4(enlarged front view)
Unlike utility patents, a design patent may only have a single claim, although the specification
may include more than one alternative embodiment. See 37 C.F.R. 1.153(a). Such embodiments
may be presented in a single design patent only if they involve a single inventive concept. In re
Rubinfield, 270 F.2d 391, 392-93 (C.C.P.A. 1959). If a design patent contains more than one
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15 Filed 08/09/13 Page 3 of 17
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
4/334
4
DB03/./10004219.1
inventive concept, the PTO will ask the applicant to choose a single inventive concept to
maintain in the application, canceling the others. See 35 U.S.C. 121. Accordingly, when
multiple embodiments appear in a single design patent, those embodiments are by definition not
patentably distinct, because they must only involve a single inventive concept. Thus, because
the four separate embodiments in the 731 patent are not patentably distinct,1 Sensio only needs
to show that one of those embodiments is anticipated by or obvious from the prior art to
invalidate the patent. See In re Klein, 987 F.2d 1569, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that [T]he
single claim covers plural alternative embodiments and [the] rejection is proper if the prior art
demonstrates the obviousness of any one of them).
When the 731 and 864 patents issued, Select Brands sent separate letters to counsel for
Sensio, identifying the patents and alleging infringement of those patents. Specifically, in an
October 31, 2012, letter, Select Brands identified, by model number, fourteen of Sensios Bella
brand slow cooker models and said that these products have features that appear to be identical
to those disclosed and claimed in the D731 patent. (Ex. 3 at Ex. 1017) And on February 12,
2013, Select Brands again sent a similar letter, this time identifying sixteen of Sensios Bella
brand slow cooker models and alleging that these products have features that appear to be
identical to those disclosed and claimed in the D864 and/or the D731 patent. (Ex. 3 at Ex.
1018.) Seven of the model numbers identified in the two letters as being identical to the claimed
design, contain round server bowls or crocks in the buffet server. (Ex. 3 at Ex. 1019.)
1During prosecution of the 731 patent, the PTO identified figures 1-7, figures 8-14,
figures 15-21, and figures 66-72 as separate embodiments of a single design, (Ex. 4.) Figures60-65 were renumbered as figures 22-28 in the issued 731 patent.
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15 Filed 08/09/13 Page 4 of 17
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
5/334
5
DB03/./10004219.1
(Id. at 4.) The rest have oval crocks in the buffet server.
Select Brands followed through on the threats in these letters with the current lawsuit. As
result, Select Brands has taken the position for litigation that the 731 and 864 patents cover
both round and oval server bowls. Because there are numerous pieces of prior art showing
multi-crock buffet servers having both round and oval crocks, Sensio filed petitions seeking inter
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15 Filed 08/09/13 Page 5 of 17
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
6/334
6
DB03/./10004219.1
partes review of both patents at the PTO. For instance, Shi 429 is a Chinese utility patent
application CN 101696429 to Shi et al. (Shi 429), filed on October 10, 2009 and published on
April 21, 2010, and is prior art to the 731 and 864 patents. (Ex. 3 at Exs. 1002, 1003.) It
discloses the same overall visual impression as the design claimed in those patents. This chart
compares Shi 429 to the first embodiment of the 731 patent.
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15 Filed 08/09/13 Page 6 of 17
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
7/334
DB03/./10004219.1
Shi 429
Likewise, there are many
bowls, similar to those that Selec
and 864 patents. For instance,
al. (Shi 264), filed on May 7,
the 731 and 864 patents.
7
First Embodiment
pieces of prior art showing a buffet server with
t Brands said are identical to the design clai
hi 547 is a Chinese design registration CN301
2008 and published on September 16, 2009, an
of 731
round server
ed in the 731
10547 to Shi et
is prior art to
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15 Filed 08/09/13 Page 7 of 17
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
8/334
DB03/./10004219.1
(Ex. 3 at Exs. 1008, 1009.)
On August 7, 2013, Sens
PTO based on these prior art ref
separate grounds for unpatentabi
patent. (See Exs. 1 and 2, Petiti
II. THE PTOS INTER PInter partes review is a n
America Invents Act (AIA).
scattered sections of 35 U.S.C. (
efficient mechanism to reconsid
319. Inter partes review proceed
judges with competent legal kn
to be a less costly alternative to i
Inter Partes Review Proceedings
Covered Business Method Paten
77 Fed. Reg. 48,680, at 48,680 (
engage[] in a transparent proces
(emphasis added); see also id. at
duplication of efforts. In particu
8
io filed Petitions for Inter Partes Review of bot
rences, along with six other references, and set
lity of the 731 patent and 14 separate grounds
ns for Inter Partes Review.)
RTES REVIEW PROCESS
w administrative proceeding created by the Le
ub. Law No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (codified as
011)). With it, Congress armed the PTO with
r the validity of previously issued patents. 35
ings are decided by a three-judge panel of admi
wledge and scientific ability, 35 U.S.C. 6, a
nvalidity challenges in district courts. Changes
, Post-Grant Review Proceedings, and Transitio
s, Final Rule (USPTO Inter Partes Review Im
ug. 14, 2012) (stating that the AIA allows the
s to create a timely, cost-effective alternative t
48,721 ([I]t is anticipated that the rules will m
lar, the AIA provides more coordination betwee
patents with the
ing forth 16
or the 864
hy-Smith
amended in
fast and
.S.C. 311-
nistrative patent
nd are intended
to Implement
nal Program for
plementation),
TO to
litigation)
inimize
n district court
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15 Filed 08/09/13 Page 8 of 17
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
9/334
9
DB03/./10004219.1
infringement litigation and inter partes review to reduce duplication of efforts and costs.); 157
Cong. Rec. S952 (daily ed. Feb. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Charles Grassley) (stating that inter
partes review is intended to provide a faster, less costly alternative[] to civil litigation to
challenge patents.).
The inter partes review process is simple, streamlined, and on a controlled timeline. A
party starts the process by filing a petition requesting that the Patent Trial and Appeals Board
(the Board) cancel one or more claims of a patent. 35 U.S.C. 311; 37 C.F.R. 42.104.
Within three months of receiving the petition, the patent owner may file a preliminary response.
35 U.S.C. 313; 37 C.F.R. 42.107(b). Within three months of receiving the patent owners
preliminary response, the Board must decide whether to institute trial. 35 U.S.C. 314. To have
a trial instituted, the petition needs to show a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner [will]
prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. 314(a).
If a trial is instituted, the patent owner has three months (unless an earlier deadline is set
by the Board) to file a more complete response addressing any ground for unpatentability that
was not already denied by the Board. 37 C.F.R. 42.120. The patent owner is automatically
permitted one motion to amend the patent, 37 C.F.R. 42.121, and after a limited period of
discovery by both parties, 37 C.F.R. 42.51,the Board conducts a hearing at which both parties
may be heard, 37 C.F.R. 42.70.
Ultimately, the Board is required to issue its final written decision as to the patentability
of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner and any new claim added by amendment within
one year of instituting trial. 35 U.S.C. 316(a)(11), 318(a). [F]or good cause shown that
statutory deadline may be extended by six months. 35 U.S.C. 316(a)(11). But such
[e]xtensions of the one-year period are anticipated to be rare. PTO Inter Partes Review
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15 Filed 08/09/13 Page 9 of 17
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
10/334
10
DB03/./10004219.1
Implementation, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,695. Indeed, the AIA requires the PTO to implement
regulations prescribing sanctions for dilatory tactics in the conduct of inter partes review
proceedings. 35 U.S.C. 316(a)(6); 37 C.F.R. 42.12.
Once the Board issues its final written decision, the petitioner in the inter partes
proceeding is thereafter estopped from asserting in litigation any ground of invalidity that
petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during the inter partes review. 35 U.S.C.
315(e)(2). Further, the patent owner is subject to intervening rights as to any claims that were
amended during the inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. 318(c). That is, the patent owner would not
be allowed to recover damages based on infringement of a claim that was amended during the
inter partes review. See, e.g., Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating and Packing Inc., 756 F.2d 1574,
1579 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (interpreting 35 U.S.C. 252, which is the intervening rights provision
referenced in 35 U.S.C. 318(c) related to inter partes review).
III. LEGAL STANDARDSFederal district courts have inherent power to control their dockets by staying
proceedings. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426-27 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also
Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Nephro-Tech, Inc., No. 96-2459-JWL, 1997 WL 942237, at *8 (D. Kan.
Feb. 26, 1997) (A motion to stay an action pending the resolution of a related matter in the
United States Patent and Trademark Office is directed to the sound discretion of the court.
(quotingRosenthal Mfg. Co. v. Thermal Equip., Inc., No. 85-2630-S, 1988 WL 383034, at *1 (D.
Kan. Oct. 12, 1988))).
While it appears that no court in the Tenth Circuit has considered a motion to stay for a
pending inter partes review proceeding, this Court has granted stays in connection with patent
reexaminations. See Braintree, 1997 WL 94237, at *8-10. In determining whether to grant a
stay due to a patent reexamination, courts have applied a three-factor test:
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15 Filed 08/09/13 Page 10 of 17
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
11/334
11
DB03/./10004219.1
(1)whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and streamline the trial and reducethe burden of litigation on the parties and on the court;
(2)whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set; and(3)
whether a stay would unduly prejudice the nonmoving party or present a clear tacticaladvantage for the moving party.
See, e.g., eSoft, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 505 F. Supp. 2d 784, 787 (D. Colo. 2007). Recently,
other courts have applied this three-factor test to requests for stays pending inter partes reviews
as well. See, e.g., NUtech Ventures v. Norman Noble, Inc., No. 12-cv-2326, slip. op. at 3-5 (N.
D. Ohio May 30, 2013);Regents of Univ. of Michigan v. St. Jude Med., Inc., No. 12-12908, 2013
WL 2393340 at *2 (E.D. Mich. May 31, 2013); Star Envirotech v. Redline, SACV 12-01816,
2013 WL 1716068 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2013).
This Court considered similar factors when deciding whether to stay an action pending a
patent reexamination proceeding at the PTO. See Braintree, 1997 WL 94237, at *8-10. In fact,
this Court has identified many benefits to staying an action pending a determination by the PTO
on a reexamination request:
1. All prior art presented to the Court will have been first
considered by the PTO, with its particular expertise.
2. Many discovery problems relating to prior art can be alleviated
by the PTO examination.
3. In those cases resulting in effective invalidity of the patent, the
suit will likely be dismissed.
4. The outcome of the reexamination may encourage a settlementwithout the further use of the Court.
5. The record of reexamination would likely be entered at trial,thereby reducing the complexity and length of the litigation.
6. Issues, defenses, and evidence will be more easily limited in
pre-trial conferences after a reexamination.
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15 Filed 08/09/13 Page 11 of 17
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
12/334
12
DB03/./10004219.1
7. The cost will likely be reduced both for the parties and the
Court.
Id. at*9. As this Court said, [i]t is clear from the cases . . . there is a liberal policy in favor of
granting motions to stay the outcome of USPTOs reexamination or reissuance proceedings. Id.
(quotingASCII Corp. v. STD Entertainment USA, 844 F. Supp. 1378, 1381 (N.D. Cal. 1994));
Scriptpro LLC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 05-2244-CM, 2006 WL 2294859, at * 1 (D. Kan.
Aug. 8, 2006).
IV. ARGUMENTIn this case, all of the factors to be considered weigh in favor of granting a stay. This
case is in its infancy, and inter partes review may not only simplify issues for trial, but also
eliminate the need for this case to go forward at all. A design patent has only one claim. And in
this case the minimal design that is actually claimed in the 731 and 864 patents is shown
throughout the prior art. Moreover, Select Brands itself has asserted that its patents cover buffet
servers with both round and oval serving bowls. Given that there are numerous pieces of prior
art showing such configurations, Sensio and this Court should not be put through the time and
expense of litigation when the matter can be resolved quickly and efficiently at the PTO. If the
single claims in the 731 and 864 patents are found unpatentable at the PTO, this case cannot
proceed. And Select Brands will suffer no prejudice because inter partes review is a fast
proceeding, and it can still pursue its case in this Court if it emerges with a patent that it has a
basis for asserting against Sensio.
A. Inter Partes Review May Simplify the Issues for TrialBecause the single claim in each of the 731 and 864 patents is challenged in the
Petitions for Inter Partes Review currently before the PTO, those review proceedings are likely
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15 Filed 08/09/13 Page 12 of 17
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
13/334
13
DB03/./10004219.1
to simplify issues for trial in this case.2
If the Board institutes trial on the petition (which will be
known within six months by statute), the potential outcomes of the inter partes review are that:
(1) the claims of one or both patents will be cancelled; (2) the claims of one or both patents will
be amended; and/or (3) the claims of one or both patents will be confirmed as patentable over the
prior art considered by the Board.
If the claims of one or both patents are cancelled by the Board, this Court will not need to
consider them. If the claim of either patent is amended, judicial resources will have been
conserved because the Court and parties will not have expended resources on an invalid claim
that had to be amended. Also, if the claim either patent is amended, the patent owners damages
will be limited to the period after the amendment. See 35 U.S.C. 318(c); see alsoSeattle Box
Co., 756 F.2d at 1579. And Sensio will be estopped from later raising the same invalidity
arguments in this action. 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(2). Moreover, to secure allowance of the
challenged claims, Select Brands may make arguments or take positions that are inconsistent
with its infringement contentions. In that case, Select Brands may be estopped from asserting
infringement. In other words, even if the claims are not cancelled, their scope may change
whether through amendment or arguments so the inter partes review proceeding could
significantly simply issues for trial. See Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co.v. Chimei Innolux
Corp., 2012 WL 7170593, at *2-4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2012) (staying a case pending inter partes
review, stating that [a]s this Court has previously noted, the amended standards for granting
2The only situation in which issues will not be simplified is if inter partes review is not
instituted by the PTO. As explained below, the PTO is statutorily obliged to make that decisionwithin six months. Moreover, the PTOs published statistics show that it has instituted inter
partes review in 89% of the petitions it has considered. See USPTO FY 2013 Process Production
Report, available athttp://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/stats/
process/fy2013_apr_b.jsp (last visited August 6, 2013) (reporting that in forty-nine of the fifty-five petitions considered to date, trials have been instituted).
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15 Filed 08/09/13 Page 13 of 17
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
14/334
14
DB03/./10004219.1
inter partes review probably results in an even higher likelihood than under the prior standard
that the issues in this action will be simplified by the reexamination);Ever Win Intl Corp. v.
Radioshack Corp., 902 F. Supp. 2d 503, 505-06 (D. Del. 2012) (granting stay pending
reexamination and finding there [was] the potential for the simplification of issues for trial,
either by reducing the number of claims at issue, confirming the validity of the surviving claims,
or narrowing the scope of a modified claim.); Scriptpro, 2006 WL 2294859, at *1 (staying case
pending reexamination because it would simplify issues). As result, this factor weighs in favor
of staying this action.
B.
Discovery Has Not Begun and No Trial Date Has Been Set
This action has only just begun. The scheduling conference has not yet taken place and
discovery has not started. Indeed, as of this filing, the parties have not yet exchanged mandatory
initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), agreed to a protective order, served
discovery requests, or the like. See, e.g., Smarter Agent, LLC, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 675 (granting
stay and noting, among other things, that essentially nothing has happened in this case beyond
the briefing of the instant motion to stay); Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., 2012 WL 7170593,
at *2-4 (granting a stay pending inter partes review where fact discovery had begun but not
finished, no depositions had been taken, the parties had not briefed the court on claim
construction, and no claim construction order had issued);Braintree, 1997 WL 94237, at *10
(staying a case pending reexamination and noting that the case is only a few months old).
Because this case is in its infancy, this factor, too, weighs in favor of a stay.
C. A Stay Would Not Prejudice or Present a Tactical Disadvantage to SelectBrands
As explained above, the patent statute requires that the Board decide whether to institute
trial concerning the challenged claims within six months. See 35 U.S.C. 314(b); 37 C.F.R.
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15 Filed 08/09/13 Page 14 of 17
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
15/334
15
DB03/./10004219.1
42.107(b). If trial is instituted, the patent statute further requires that the Board issue a final
written decision regarding the patentability of the claims within one year. See 35 U.S.C.
316(a)(11).3
Thus, at most, Sensios motion seeks an eighteen month stay of this litigation, the
time period within which the entire inter partes review proceeding must be completed. If the
Board decides not to institute trial, then the stay would last only six months. Such limited
timeframes, either of which has a discernible end in sight, will not unduly prejudice Select
Brands.
In sum, because any prejudice to Select Brands is minimal, and there is no tactical
disadvantage to Select Brands in granting a limited stay, this factor also weighs in favor of
staying this action.
V. CONCLUSIONThe potential to simplify or eliminate issues at this early stage of this suit, without unduly
prejudicing Select Brands, supports staying this action pending Sensios Petitions for Inter Partes
Review. Accordingly, Sensio requests that the Court grant its motion for a stay.
3Although the statute allows an additional six months for good cause shown, the PTO
has indicated that it does not anticipate relying on that provision very often. PTO Inter PartesReview Implementation, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,695.
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15 Filed 08/09/13 Page 15 of 17
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
16/334
16
DB03/./10004219.1
Dated this 9t
day of August 2013. Respectfully submitted,
STINSON MORRISON HECKER LLP
By: s/ Daniel D. Crabtree
Daniel D. Crabtree KS #10903STINSON MORRISON HECKER LLP
1201 Walnut, Suite 2900Kansas City, MO 64106
Telephone: (816) 842-8600
Facsimile: (816) [email protected]
J. Michael Jakes admitted pro hac vice
Kathleen A. Daley admitted pro hac viceElizabeth D. Ferrill admitted pro hac vice
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP901 New York Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20001-4413
Telephone: (202) 408-4098Facsimile: (202) 408-4400
Attorneys for Defendant Sensio, Inc.
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15 Filed 08/09/13 Page 16 of 17
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
17/334
17
DB03/./10004219.1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certified that on the 9th day of August, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing
with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of such filing tothe following participants:
Matthew B. WaltersMichael ElbeinScott R. Brown
HOVEY WILLIAM LLP84 Corporate Woods10801 Mastin Boulevard, Suite 1000Overland Park, Kansas 66210
Attorneys for Plaintiff
s/ Daniel D. CrabtreeAttorney for Defendant Sensio, Inc.
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15 Filed 08/09/13 Page 17 of 17
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
18/334
1DB03/./10004244.1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
SELECT BRANDS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SENSIO, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 13-cv-2108 KHV/GLR
I, ELIZABETH D. FERRILL, hereby declare and state that:
I am an attorney duly licensed to practice in all courts of the state of Virginia and the
District of Columbia; an associate of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.;
and one of the attorneys of record for Defendant Sensio Inc. I have been admitted to this Court
pro hac vice for the purposes of this civil action. The facts set forth herein are of my own
personal knowledge and, if sworn, I could and would testify competently to them. I am
submitting this Declaration in support of Sensio Incs Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes
Review.
1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Petition for InterPartes Review for D699,731, filed by Sensio at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on August
7, 2013.
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the Petition for InterPartes Review for D675,864, filed by Sensio at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on August
7, 2013.
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-1 Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 2
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
19/334
2DB03/./10004244.1
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Exhibits 1001 to 1023,filed by Sensio at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on August 7, 2013, in connection with
the Petitions for Inter Partes Review listed above.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of an Office Action issuedby the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on April 20, 2012 in connection with the prosecution of
the U.S. Patent No. D699,731.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
Dated: August 9, 2013 By: /s/ Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-1 Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 2
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
20/334
EXHIBIT
1
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
21/334
Paper No.
Filed: August 7, 2013
Filed on behalf of: Sensio, Inc.
By:
Kathleen A. Daley
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
901 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-4413
Telephone: 202-408-4000
Facsimile: 202-408-4400
E-mail: [email protected]
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
SENSIO INC.
Petitioner
v.
SELECT BRANDS, INC.
Patent Owner
Patent D699,731
PETITION FORINTER PARTESREVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. D669,731
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
22/334
- i -
Table of Contents
Table of Authorites .................................................................................................. iii
I. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1II. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. 42.8 .................................................... 1III. Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. 42.15(a) and 42.103 ............................ 2IV. Grounds for Standing ....................................................................................... 2V. Identification of Challenge .............................................................................. 2VI. Background ...................................................................................................... 4VII. Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 7VIII. The Applicable Legal Standards.................................................................... 12
A. Anticipation ......................................................................................... 12B. Obviousness ......................................................................................... 13
IX. Detailed Explanation of Grounds for Unpatentability Under theBroadest Reasonable Construction ................................................................ 14A. Ground 1: Embodiments 1, 2, and 3 Are Anticipated Under
102(a) by Shi 429 (Ex. 1002) .......................................................... 15B. Ground 2: Embodiments 1, 2, and 3 Are Obvious Under
103(a) Over Shi 429 (Ex. 1002) ...................................................... 18C. Ground 3: Embodiment 1 Is Anticipated Under 102(a) by Shi
889 (Ex. 1004) .................................................................................... 19D. Ground 4: Embodiment 1 Is Obvious under 103(a) over Shi
889 (Ex. 1004) .................................................................................... 21E. Ground 5: Embodiment 1 Is Anticipated Under 102(a) by Lu
763 (Ex. 1006) .................................................................................... 22F. Ground 6: Embodiment 1 Is Obvious under 103(a) over Lu
763 (Ex. 1006) .................................................................................... 24
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 3 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
23/334
- ii -
G. Ground 7: Embodiment 1 Is Anticipated Under 102(b) by Shi547 (Ex. 1008) .................................................................................... 25
H. Ground 8: Embodiment 1 Is Obvious under 103(a) over Shi547 (Ex. 1008) .................................................................................... 28
I. Ground 9: Embodiments 1, 2, and 3 Are Anticipated Under 102(b) by Shi 269 (Ex. 1010) ......................................................... 29
J. Ground 10: Embodiments 1, 2, and 3 Are Obvious Under 103(a) Over Shi 269 (Ex. 1010) ...................................................... 32
K. Ground 11: Embodiment 2 Is Anticipated Under 102(b) byShi 069 (Ex. 1012) ............................................................................. 33
L. Ground 12: Embodiment 2 Is Obvious Under 103(a) over Shi069 (Ex. 1012) .................................................................................... 36M. Ground 13: Embodiment 1 Is Obvious Under 103(a) Over Shi
547 (Ex. 1008) in View of Perkins 654 (Ex. 1014) .......................... 38N. Ground 14: Embodiments 1, 2, and 3 Are Obvious Under
103(a) Over Shi 269 (Ex. 1010) in View of Perkins 654 (Ex.
1014) .................................................................................................... 41O. Ground 15: Embodiments 1, 2, and 3 Are Obvious Under
103(a) Over Shi 269 (Ex. 1010) in View of Shi 110 (Ex.
1015) .................................................................................................... 44P. Ground 16: Embodiment 2 Is Obvious Under 103(a) Over Shi
069 (Ex. 1012) in View of Shi 110 (Ex. 1015) ................................ 47X. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 50Appendix - List of Exhibits
Certificate of Service
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 4 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
24/334
- iii -
Table of Authorities
Page(s)
FEDERAL CASES
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................... 13, 14
Contessa Food Products, Inc. v. Conagra, Inc.,
282 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 7
Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co.,
101 F.3d 100 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .....................................................................passim
Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.,
543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 7, 8
In re Borden,
90 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ...................................................................... 13, 14
In re Carter,
673 F.2d 1378 (C.C.P.A. 1982) ............................................................. 19, 34, 38
In re Klein,
987 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .................................................................. passim
In re Lamb,286 F.2d 610 (C.C.P.A. 1961) .....................................................................passim
In re Nalbandian,661 F.2d 1214 (C.C.P.A. 1981) .......................................................................... 13
In re Rosen,673 F.2d 388 (C.C.P.A. 1982) ........................................................................... 13
In re Rubinfield,
270 F.2d 391 (C.C.P.A. 1959) ............................................................................. 8
In re Stevens,
173 F.2d 1015 (C.C.P.A. 1949) .................................................................. passim
International Seaway Trading Copr. v. Walgreens Corp.,
589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................................................passim
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 5 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
25/334
- iv -
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 14
Titan Titan Tire Corp. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co,
566 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ......................................................................... 14
FEDERAL STATUTES
35 U.S.C. 102 .................................................................................................passim
35 U.S.C. 103 .................................................................................................passim
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act Technical Corrections,
Pub. L. No. 112-274, 1(d)(1), 126 Stat. 2456 (2013) ........................................ 2
FEDERAL REGULATIONS
37 C.F.R. 1.152 ....................................................................................................... 8
37 C.F.R. 1.104 ..................................................................................................... 12
37 C.F.R. 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
37 C.F.R. 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 2
37 C.F.R. 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 7
37 C.F.R. 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 2
37 C.F.R. 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 2
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 6 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
26/334
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
27/334
2
Telephone: 202-408-4098
Facsimile: 202-408-4400
E-mail:
Telephone: 202-408-4445
Facsimile: 202-408-4400
E-mail:
III. Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. 42.15(a) and 42.103The required fees are submitted herewith. If any additional fees are due at
any time during this proceeding, the Office is authorized to charge such fees to
Deposit Account No. 06-0916.
IV. Grounds for StandingPetitioner certifies that, under 37 C.F.R. 42.104(a), the 731 patent is
available for inter partes review, and Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
requesting inter partes review of the 731 patent on the grounds identified.2
V. Identification of ChallengePursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b), Petitioner requests inter partes review
based on the following prior art that was not cited during prosecution:
2Although the 731 patent issued on October 30, 2012, it is available forinter
partes review. See Leahy-Smith America Invents Act Technical Corrections, Pub.
L. No. 112-274, 1(d)(1), 126 Stat. 2456 (2013).
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 8 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
28/334
3
Exhibit DescriptionPublication/
Issue Date
Ex. 1002 CN 101695429 A to Shi et al. (Shi 429) Apr. 21, 2010
Ex. 1003 Certified English Translation of Shi 429
Ex. 1004 Chinese Design Registration CN301282889 to Shi(Shi 889)
July 14, 2010
Ex. 1005 Certified English Translation of Shi 889
Ex. 1006 Chinese Design Registration CN301383763 to Lu
(Lu 763)
Nov. 17, 2010
Ex. 1007 Certified English Translation of Lu 763
Ex. 1008 Chinese Design Registration CN301010547 to Shi
(Shi 547)
Sept. 16, 2009
Ex. 1009 Certified English Translation of Shi 547Ex. 1010 CN 101564269 A to Shi (Shi 269) Oct. 28, 2009
Ex. 1011 Certified English Translation of Shi 269
Ex. 1012 CN 100577069 to Shi (Shi 069) Jan. 6, 2010
Ex. 1013 Certified English Translation of Shi 069
Ex. 1014 U.S. Design Patent No. D590,654 to Perkins
(Perkins 654), filed Dec. 8, 2008
Apr. 21, 2009
Ex. 1015 CN 101862110 to Shi et al. (Shi 110) Oct. 20, 2010
Ex. 1016 Certified English Translation of Shi 110
Petitioner requests inter partes review based on the following grounds:
GroundChallenged
EmbodimentsDescription
1 1, 2, 3 Anticipated under 102(a) by Shi 429 (Ex. 1002)
2 1, 2, 3 Obvious under 103(a) over Shi 429 (Ex. 1002)
3 1 Anticipated under 102(a) by Shi 889 (Ex. 1004)
4 1 Obvious under 103(a) over Shi 889 (Ex. 1004)5 1 Anticipated under 102(a) by Lu 763 (Ex. 1006)
6 1 Obvious under 103(a) over Lu 763 (Ex. 1006)
7 1 Anticipated under 102(b) by Shi 547 (Ex. 1008)
8 1 Obvious under 103(a) over Shi 547 (Ex. 1008)
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 9 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
29/334
4
GroundChallenged
EmbodimentsDescription
9 1, 2, 3 Anticipated under 102(b) by Shi 269 (Ex. 1010)
10 1, 2, 3 Obvious under 103(a) over Shi 269 (Ex. 1010)
11 2 Anticipated under 102(b) by Shi 069 (Ex. 1012)12 2 Obvious under 103(a) over Shi 069 (Ex. 1012)
13 1 Obvious under 103(a) over Shi 547 (Ex. 1008) in
view of Perkins 654 (Ex. 1014)
14 1, 2, 3 Obvious under 103(a) over Shi 269 (Ex. 1010) in
view of Perkins 654 (Ex. 1014)
15 1, 2, 3 Obvious under 103(a) over Shi 269 (Ex. 1010) in
view of Shi 110 (Ex. 1015)
16 2 Obvious under 103(a) over Shi 069 (Ex. 1012) inview of Shi 110 (Ex. 1015)
Section VII explains how the claim should be construed and Section IX
explains how each claim element is found in the prior art.
VI. BackgroundThe application for the 731 patent was filed on January 13, 2011,
3and is
entitled Multiple Crock Buffet Server. The application contained a single claim
and 72 figures, depicting ten embodiments. On April 20, 2012, the Examiner
required restriction between seven Groups: Group I: embodiments 1 (figures 1-7),
2 (figures 8-14), 3 (figures 15-21), and 10 (figures 66-72); Group II: embodiments
4 (figures 22-28) and 5 (figures 29-35); Group III: embodiment 6 (figures 36-43);
3Because the application for the 731 patent was filed prior to the effective date of
the America Invents Act (AIA), the pre-AIA statutes apply here.
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 10 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
30/334
5
Group IV: embodiment 7 (figures 44-50); Group V: embodiment 8 (figures 51-59);
and Group VI: embodiment 9 (figures 60-65). (April 20, 2012 Restriction Reqt at
2.) The applicants elected to proceed with Group I, canceled the remaining
figures, amended certain remaining figures, and renumbered figures 66-72 to
figures 22-28. (July 2, 2012 Amendment.) The application was then allowed. At
no point did applicants submit an Information Disclosure Statement.
The 731 patent issued on October 30, 2012 and contains four embodiments,
which the Examiner deemed to be patentably indistinct:
Embodiment 1 (figures 1-7) two or more oval server bowl inserts situated
adjacent opposite ends of the heated server base unit housing (731 patent at
description of figure 1.)
Embodiment 2 (figures 8-14) two or more oval server bowl inserts covering
various buffet server housing lengths (731 patent at description of figure 8.)
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 11 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
31/334
6
Embodiment 3 (figures 15-21) two or more oval server bowl inserts (731
patent at description of figure 15.)
Embodiment 4 (figures 22-28) multiple crock buffet server (731 patent at
description of figure 22.)
The day after the 731 patent issued, as a prelude to litigation, the Patent
Owner sent a letter to counsel for the Petitioner identifying the 731 patent, which
the Patent Owner said is directed to a multiple crock buffet server, and asserting
that the Petitioners products infringe the 731 patent. (Ex. 1017.) In that letter,
the Patent Owner identified fourteen of Petitioners Bella brand slow cooker model
numbers, that, according to the Patent Owner, have features that appear to be
identical to those disclosed and claimed in the D731 patent. (Id.) Of the
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 12 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
32/334
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
33/334
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
34/334
9
As illustrated below, the first embodiment (figures 1-7) depicts a portion of a
pair of curved bowl-insert rims, having a particular profile:
Fig. 1
(front perspective view)
Fig. 3
(top view)
Fig. 4
(enlarged
front view)
The claimed design does not include the outer handles or the notch for
resting a spoon. While the descriptions refer to oval server bowl inserts, figures
1-7 show both the inner and outer portion of the outer handle in dashed lines. As a
result, under the broadest reasonable construction, the first embodiment covers
portions of a curved rim of bowl inserts (not including those portions of the rim
containing the outer handles or the notch), as shown above, in the emphasized
figures. Stated more specifically, the first embodiment
covers: (1) the curved portions of two rims of two bowl
inserts situated adjacent opposite ends of the heated
server base unit housing; and (2) rims having the
following profile, in which the side of the rim slightly
protrudes on the top (dot-dash line), with a rounded top
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 15 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
35/334
10
edge (larger dashed circle) and a less rounded bottom edge (smaller dashed circle).
For the second embodiment (figures 8-14), the specification likewise
disclaims: the top and bottom of the housing; the control knobs, the lid holders, the
oval liners that receive the bowl inserts, the outer handle surfaces, the spoon-rest
notch, bosses, and housing feet. (731 patent at description of figures 8, 9, and 11.)
Figures 8-11 and 13 include the drawing convention for a design having
indeterminate length, as confirmed by the specification.
While the specification says that the second embodiment covers two or
more oval server bowl inserts (731 patent at description of figures 8), the Patent
Owner, in its pre-filing letters to Petitioner, asserted that seven different models of
buffet servers each having round server bowls infringe the 731 patent and have
features that are identical to those disclosed and claimed in the 731 patent. (Ex.
1017.) In other words, the Patent Owner has clearly construed the 731 patent as
covering slow cookers with both round and oval server bowls. This constitutes an
admission by the Patent Owner regarding the scope and thus patentability of the
731 patent. The PTO can, and the Petitioner submits should, use such an
admission by the Patent Owner in determining patentability. See 37 C.F.R.
1.104(c)(3). As a result, the second embodiment should be construed under the
broadest reasonable construction to include at least two curved server bowl inserts
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 16 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
36/334
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
37/334
12
under the broadest reasonable construction, the fourth embodiment covers a curved
server bowl positioned perpendicularly to another curved server bowl.
Petitioner notes certain inconsistencies between the figures and the
specification. For instance, the front outer handles appear claimed in figure 2, but
are disclaimed in the specification. In addition, portions of the front and rear face
of the housing appear claimed in figures 4-7, but only partially claimed in figures 1
and 2, and not shaded as claimed in any figures. Nonetheless, under the broadest
reasonable construction, these features are not part of the claim.
In sum, as reflected by the four embodiments of the claimed design, which
are by definition not patentably distinct, under the broadest reasonable
construction, the claimed design should be construed to encompass portions of two
curved rims (oval or round), having the profile shown above, with or without bowl
inserts, separated by any width and arranged in any configuration.
VIII. The Applicable Legal StandardsA. AnticipationThe ordinary observer test is the sole test for determining anticipation of a
design patent under 35 U.S.C. 102. Intl Seaway Trading Copr. v. Walgreens
Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009). This test considers whether an
ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing
that, taken as a whole, the prior art reference and the claimed design are the same.
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 18 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
38/334
13
Egyptian Goddess, 534 F.3d at 675, 681.
B. ObviousnessIn the design patent context, the ultimate inquiry under section 103 is
whether the claimed design would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary
skill who designs articles of the type involved. Durling v. Spectrum Furniture
Co., 101 F.3d 100, 103 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 390
(C.C.P.A. 1982));see also Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F.3d 1314, 1329
(Fed. Cir. 2012). This inquiry focuses on the visual impression of the claimed
design as a whole and not on selected individual features. In re Borden, 90 F.3d
1570, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In this case, the designer of ordinary skill would be
someone with background and training in the design of small kitchen appliances
and who is presumed to have knowledge of the prior art slow cookers. SeeIn re
Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 1215-16 (C.C.P.A. 1981).
Next, the Federal Circuit uses a two-step obviousness determination process
for design patents. See Apple, 678 F.3d at 1329-31. First, one must find a single
reference, a something in existence, the design characteristics of which are
basically the same as the claimed design. Durling, 101 F.3d at 103. Second,
other references may be used to modify [the primary reference] to create a design
that has the same overall visual appearance as the claimed design. Id. The
secondary references may be used to modify the primary reference if the two are
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 19 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
39/334
14
so related to the primary reference that the appearance of certain ornamental
features in one would suggest that application of those features to the other.
Borden, 90 F.3d at 1575.
The hypothetical reference, created through the combination of the primary
and secondary references, and the claimed design are then analyzed using the
ordinary observer test. Intl Seaway, 589 F.3d at 1241. The touchstone is the
similarity of overall appearance; small differences are inconsequential. [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 patentable. In re Lamb, 286 F.2d
610, 611 (C.C.P.A. 1961); see also KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 401 (2007) (stating that a combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results); Titan Titan Tire Corp. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, 566 F.3d 1372,
1385 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (stating that it is not obvious that the Supreme Court
necessarily intended to exclude design patents from the reach ofKSR).
IX. Detailed Explanation of Grounds for Unpatentability Under theBroadest Reasonable Construction
This Petition explains that the 731 patent is invalid on multiple grounds.
The references presented by Petitioner provide visual disclosures that were not
considered by the Office during prosecution. The references and grounds are also
not cumulative to each other given the different disclosures of the references. A
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 20 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
40/334
15
reasonable examiner would consider these references to be important in deciding
whether the claims are patentable, and this Petition demonstrates a reasonable
likelihood that Petitioner will prevail.
A. Ground 1: Embodiments 1, 2, and 3 Are Anticipated Under 102(a) by Shi 429 (Ex. 1002)
Shi 429 discloses the same overall visual impression as embodiments 1, 2,
and 3, and, as result, the claimed design is anticipated by Shi 429 under 35
U.S.C. 102(a). (Ex. 1002 at 6-8.) Shi 429 is a Chinese utility patent application,
filed on October 10, 2009 and published on April 21, 2010, prior to the filing date
of the 731 patent. (Ex. 1003 at 1.) Therefore, Shi 429 is a prior art printed
publication under 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
Shi 429 has virtually an identical overall visual appearance to the first
embodiment of the 731 patent:
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 21 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
41/334
16
Shi 429 First Embodiment of 731
As shown below, Shi 429 discloses the same curved rims and the same rim
profile as first embodiment:
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 22 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
42/334
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
43/334
18
Shi 429 Third Embodiment of 731
Similarly, Shi 429 discloses the second embodiment, because that
embodiment does not specify any distance between its claimed bowl inserts.
With three embodiments anticipated by Shi 429, the claim is anticipated
under 35 U.S.C. 102(a). See Klein, 987 F.2d at 1570. And the Petitioner has
established a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on this ground of rejection.
B. Ground 2: Embodiments 1, 2, and 3 Are Obvious Under 103(a)Over Shi 429 (Ex. 1002)
In the alternative, Shi 429 discloses the same overall visual impression as
embodiments 1, 2, and 3, and in view of the common knowledge of a designer
having ordinary skill in the art, any differences arede minimus and not sufficient to
justify a finding that the design is patentable. As a result, the claim is obvious
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over Shi 429.
Shi 429 is a suitable primary reference, because Shi 429 discloses a slow
cooker with basically the same design characteristics as the claimed design.
Durling, 101 F.3d at 103. Indeed, Shi 429 is so similar to the claimed design, that
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 24 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
44/334
19
no secondary reference is necessary.
As to the first, second, and third embodiments, to the extent that there are
viewed to be any disclosure not plainly evident from Shi 429 (e.g., incomplete
side view of figure 2, a need to collapse some layers of figure 5, or any minor
differences in proportion of the curved rims), Shi 429 readily suggests to these
minor alterations to one of ordinary skill to arrive at a hypothetical reference. See
In re Carter, 673 F.2d 1378, 1380 (C.C.P.A. 1982); see also In re Stevens, 173
F.2d 1015, 1015-16 (C.C.P.A. 1949) (obvious changes in . . . proportioning
involve ordinary skill only). Finally, considering this hypothetical Shi 429
reference, the ordinary observer would be deceived into believing that the
hypothetical Shi 429 is the same as the claimed design. Intl Seaway, 589 F.3d at
1240-41. Application of such ordinary skill does not make the claimed design
patentable over Shi 429. Stevens, 173 F.2d at 1015-16.
Thus, the claim is obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based on Shi 429. See
Klein, 987 F.2d at 1570. And the Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood
that it will prevail on this ground of rejection.
C. Ground 3: Embodiment 1 Is Anticipated Under 102(a) by Shi889 (Ex. 1004)
Shi 889 discloses the same overall visual impression as embodiment 1 and,
as result, the claimed design is anticipated by Shi 889 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
(Ex. 1004.) Shi 889 is a Chinese design registration, filed on October 10, 2009
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 25 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
45/334
20
and published on July 14, 2010, prior to the filing date of the 731 patent. (Ex.
1005 at 1.) Therefore, Shi 889 is a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C.
102(a). Shi 889 appears to be the companion design registration to Shi 429
(Ex. 1002). Although similar to Shi 429, because Shi 889 discloses all six views
of the design, it is not cumulative of Shi 429.
Shi 889 has virtually an identical overall visual appearance to the first
embodiment of the 731 patent:
Shi 889 First Embodiment of 731
As shown below, Shi 889 discloses the same portions of curved rims and
the same rim profile as the claimed design:
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 26 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
46/334
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
47/334
22
embodiment 1 defeating anticipation under 102(a), Shi 889 discloses the same
overall visual impression as embodiment 1 and in view of the common knowledge
of a designer having ordinary skill in the art, any differences are de minimus and
not sufficient to justify a finding that the design is patentable under 103(a). Shi
889 is a suitable primary reference, because Shi 889 discloses a slow cooker with
basically the same design characteristics as the claimed design. Durling, 101
F.3d at 103. Thus, the claim is obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based on Shi
889. See Klein, 987 F.2d at 1570. Therefore, the Petitioner has established a
reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on this proposed ground of rejection.
E. Ground 5: Embodiment 1 Is Anticipated Under 102(a) by Lu763 (Ex. 1006)
Lu 763 discloses the same overall visual impression as embodiment 1 and,
as result, the claimed design is anticipated by Lu 763 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
(Ex. 1006.) Lu 763 is a Chinese design registration, filed on June 23, 2010 and
published on November 17, 2010, prior to the filing date of the 731 patent. (Ex.
1007 at 1.) Therefore, Lu 763 is a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C.
102(a). Because the disclosure of Lu 763 is not the same as the other references
cited herein, it is not cumulative.
Focusing on portions of the design claimed in the first embodiment of the
731 patent, Lu 763 has virtually an identical overall visual appearance:
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 28 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
48/334
23
Lu 763 First Embodiment of 731
Lu 763 has a similar thick rim profile with rounded edges to the claimed
design. As shown below, Lu 763 also discloses the same portions of two curved
rims as the claimed design:
Lu 763 (in gray) with First Embodiment of 731 Overlaid (in black)
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 29 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
49/334
24
When considered in the context of the ordinary observer test, an ordinary
observer familiar with the relevant prior art (see, e.g.,Exs. 1002-1016), would be
deceived into believing that, taken as a whole, Lu 763 is the same as the first
embodiment of the claimed design. Even minor variations between the claimed
design and Lu 763 does not preclude a finding of anticipation because these
variations, if any, do not change the overall visual impression of the products at
issue. Intl Seaway, 589 F.3d at 1243.
With even one embodiment anticipated by Lu 763, the claim is anticipated
under 35 U.S.C. 102(a). See Klein, 987 F.2d at 1570. Therefore, the Petitioner
has established a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on this proposed ground
of rejection.
F. Ground 6: Embodiment 1 Is Obvious under 103(a) over Lu 763(Ex. 1006)
To the extent that any minor differences are alleged between Lu 763 and
embodiment 1 defeating anticipation under 102(a), Lu 763 discloses the same
overall visual impression as embodiment 1 and in view of the common knowledge
of a designer having ordinary skill in the art, any differences are de minimus and
not sufficient to justify a finding that the design is patentable under 103(a). Lu
763 is a suitable primary reference, because Lu 763 discloses a slow cooker with
basically the same design characteristics as the claimed design. Durling, 101
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 30 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
50/334
25
F.3d at 103. Thus, the claim is obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based on Lu
763. See Klein, 987 F.2d at 1570. Therefore, the Petitioner has established a
reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on this proposed ground of rejection.
G. Ground 7: Embodiment 1 Is Anticipated Under 102(b) by Shi547 (Ex. 1008)
Shi 547 discloses the same overall visual impression as embodiment 1 and,
as result, the claimed design is anticipated by Shi 547 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
(Ex. 1008.) Shi 547 is a Chinese design registration, filed on May 7, 2008 and
published on September 16, 2009, more than a year before the filing date of the
731 patent. (Ex. 1009 at 1.) Therefore, Shi 547 is a prior art printed publication
under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Because the disclosure of Shi 547 is not the same as
the other references cited herein, it is not cumulative.
As discussed above, in an October 31, 2013 letter to the Petitioner asserting
infringement, the Patent Owner alleged that seven different slow cooker models,
all with round serving bowls, appear to be identical to the slow cooker products
disclosed and claimed in the D731 patent. (Ex. 1017.) Three months later, the
Patent Owner made the same infringement allegations, asserting that seven
different slow cooker models with round serving bowls have features that appear
to be identical to those disclosed and claimed in the D864 and/or D731. (Ex.
1018.) To make such an such infringement allegation, the Patent Owners position
had to be that an ordinary observer observing a buffet server with round serving
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 31 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
51/334
26
bowls would be deceived into thinking that it was the same as the patented design.
Presumably the Patent Owner gave the accused designs more attention than an
ordinary observer when saying that they are identical to and infringe the 731
patent. The PTO should not ignore this admission by the Patent Owner that the
731 patent covers buffet servers with curved server bowls, including round bowls,
and that an ordinary observer would be deceived into thinking that a buffet server
with round server bowls is the same as the claimed design.
Focusing on portions of the design claimed in the first embodiment of the
731 patent, and as confirmed by the Patent Owners admission, Shi 547 has
virtually an identical overall visual appearance:
Shi 547 First Embodiment of 731
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 32 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
52/334
27
Shi 547 discloses a very similar rim profile with rounded edges as the first
embodiment of the 731 patent. Further, Shi 547 discloses the same portions of
two curved rims:
Shi 547 (in gray) with First Embodiment of 731 Overlaid (in black)
When considered in the context of the ordinary observer test, it is clear that
an ordinary observer familiar with the relevant prior art (see, e.g.,Exs. 1002-1015),
would be deceived into believing that, taken as a whole, Shi 547 is the same as the
first embodiment of the claimed design. Minor variations between the claimed
design and Shi 547 does not preclude a finding of anticipation because these
variations, if any, do not change the overall visual impression of the products at
issue. Intl Seaway, 589 F.3d at 1243. And, as discussed above, the Patent
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 33 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
53/334
28
Owners infringement allegations amount to an admission that an ordinary
observer would be deceived if there are variations in between the claimed design
and a buffet server with round bowls.
With even one embodiment anticipated by Shi 547, the claim is anticipated
under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). See Klein, 987 F.2d at 1570. And the Petitioner has
established a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on this proposed ground of
rejection.
H. Ground 8: Embodiment 1 Is Obvious under 103(a) over Shi 547(Ex. 1008)
To the extent that any minor differences are alleged between Shi 547 and
embodiment 1 defeating anticipation under 102(a), Shi 547 discloses the same
overall visual impression as embodiment 1 and in view of the common knowledge
of a designer having ordinary skill in the art, any differences are de minimus and
not sufficient to justify a finding that the design is patentable under 103(a).
Indeed, the Patent Owners assertion that a similar buffet server with round serving
bowls is identical to the claimed design and infringes the claimed design, shows
that any differences are de minimus. Shi 547 is a suitable primary reference,
because Shi 547 discloses a slow cooker with basically the same design
characteristics as the claimed design. Durling, 101 F.3d at 103. Thus, the claim
is obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based on Shi 547. See Klein, 987 F.2d at
1570. Therefore, the Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it will
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 34 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
54/334
29
prevail on this proposed ground of rejection.
I. Ground 9: Embodiments 1, 2, and 3 Are Anticipated Under 102(b) by Shi 269 (Ex. 1010)
Shi 269 discloses the same overall visual impression as embodiments 1, 2,
and 3, and, as result, the claimed design is anticipated by Shi 269 under
35 U.S.C. 102(b). (Ex. 1010 at 6-7.) Shi 269 is a public disclosure of a Chinese
patent application, filed on May 7, 2009 and published on October 28, 2009, more
than one year prior to the filing date of the 731 patent. (Ex. 1011 at 1.)
Therefore, Shi 269 is a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
Because the disclosure of Shi 269 is not the same as the other references cited
herein, it is not cumulative.
As confirmed by the Patent Owners admission that the claimed design
covers curved server bowls (both oval and round), Shi 269 has virtually an
identical overall visual appearance to the first embodiment of the 731 patent, as
shown in the annotated figures:
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 35 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
55/334
30
Shi 269 First Embodiment of 731
Shi 269 discloses the same portions of two curved rims as the claimed
design and has a thick rim profile with a rounded edges, wherein the upper rim
extends protrudes slightly.
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 36 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
56/334
31
Shi 269 with First Embodiment of 731 Overlaid (in white)
When considered in the context of the ordinary observer test, it is clear that
an ordinary observer familiar with the relevant prior art (see, e.g.,Exs. 1002-1015),
would be deceived into believing that, taken as a whole, Shi 269 is the same as the
first embodiment of the claimed design. Indeed, as discussed above, the Patent
Owners infringement allegations amount to an admission that an ordinary
observer would be deceived if there are variations between the claimed design and
a buffet server with round bowls.
Likewise, as to the second and third embodiments, Shi 269 discloses
portions of two curved rims with bowl inserts in its exploded view (see Ex. 1010 at
7 (figure 5) (emphasis added)):
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 37 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
57/334
32
Shi 269 Third Embodiment of 731
Likewise, Shi 269 discloses the second embodiment, because that embodiment
does not specify any distance between its claimed bowl inserts.
Thus, the claim is anticipated by Shi 269 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). See
Klein, 987 F.2d at 1570. And the Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood
that it will prevail on this proposed ground of rejection.
J. Ground 10: Embodiments 1, 2, and 3 Are Obvious Under 103(a)Over Shi 269 (Ex. 1010)
In the alternative, Shi 269 discloses the same overall visual impression as
embodiments 1, 2, and 3, and in view of the common knowledge of a designer
having ordinary skill in the art, any differences arede minimus and not sufficient to
justify a finding that the design is patentable. Indeed, the Patent Owners assertion
that a similar buffet server with round serving bowl is identical to the claimed
design and infringes the claimed design, shows that any differences are de
minimus. As a result, the claim is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over
Shi 269.
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 38 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
58/334
33
Shi 269 is a suitable primary reference, because Shi 269 discloses a slow
cooker with basically the same design characteristics as the claimed design,
under its broadest reasonable construction. Durling, 101 F.3d at 103. Indeed, Shi
269 is so similar to the claimed design, that no secondary reference is necessary.
As to the first, second, and third embodiments, to the extent that there are
viewed to be any disclosure not plainly evident from Shi 269 (e.g., incomplete
views in figures 2 and 3, a need to collapse some layers of figure 5, or any minor
differences in proportion of portions of the curved rims), Shi 269 readily suggests
to these minor alternations to one of ordinary skill to arrive at a hypothetical
reference. See Carter, 673 F.2d at 1380; see also Stevens, 173 F.2d at 1015-16.
Finally, considering this hypothetical Shi 269 reference, the ordinary observer
would be deceived into believing that the hypothetical Shi 269 is the same as the
claimed design. Intl Seaway, 589 F.3d at 1240-41. Application of such ordinary
skill does not make the claimed design patentable over Shi 269. Stevens, 173 F.2d
at 1015-16.
Thus, the claim is obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based on Shi 269. See
Klein, 987 F.2d at 1570. Therefore, the Petitioner has established a reasonable
likelihood that it will prevail on this proposed ground of rejection.
K. Ground 11: Embodiment 2 Is Anticipated Under 102(b) by Shi069 (Ex. 1012)
Shi 069 discloses the same overall visual impression as embodiment 2 and,
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 39 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
59/334
34
as result, the claimed design is anticipated by Shi 069 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
(Ex. 1012 at 6-7.) Shi 069 is a utility model specification, filed on May 7, 2008
and published on Jan. 6, 2010, more than one year prior to the filing date of the
731 patent. (Ex. 1013 at 1.) Therefore, Shi 069 is a prior art printed publication
under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Because the disclosure of Shi 069 is not the same as
the other references cited herein, it is not cumulative.
As confirmed by the Patent Owners admission that the claimed design
covers curved server bowls (both round and oval), Shi 069 has virtually an
identical overall visual appearance to the second embodiment of the 731 patent:
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 40 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
60/334
35
Shi 069 Second Embodiment of 7314
(emphasis added)
Shi 069 discloses the same portions of two curved rims, as shown below,
(where the claimed design covers any distance between the rims), the same bowl
inserts, and has a thick rim profile with a rounded edges.
4Figure 10 has been altered to remove the spacing between the bowl inserts.
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 41 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
61/334
36
Shi 069 with Second Embodiment of 731 Overlaid (in white)
When considered in the context of the ordinary observer test, an ordinary
observer familiar with the relevant prior art (see, e.g.,Exs. 1002-1015), would be
deceived into believing that, taken as a whole, Shi 069 is the same as the second
embodiment of the claimed design.
With even one embodiment anticipated, the claim is anticipated by Shi 069
under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). See Klein, 987 F.2d at 1570. Therefore, the Petitioner
has established a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on this proposed ground
of rejection.
L. Ground 12: Embodiment 2 Is Obvious Under 103(a) over Shi069 (Ex. 1012)
In the alternative, Shi 069 discloses the same overall visual impression as
embodiment 2 and in view of the common knowledge of a designer having
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 42 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
62/334
37
ordinary skill in the art, any differences are de minimus and not sufficient to justify
a finding that the design is patentable. Indeed, the Patent Owners assertion that a
similar buffet server with round serving bowl is identical to the claimed design and
infringes the claimed design, shows that any differences are de minimus. As a
result, the claim is obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over Shi 069.
Shi 069 is a suitable primary reference, because Shi 069 discloses a slow
cooker with basically the same design characteristics as embodiment 2 of the
claimed design, under its broadest reasonable construction. Durling, 101 F.3d at
103. Shi 069 is so similar to the claimed design, that no secondary reference is
necessary.
To the extent that there is viewed to be any disclosure in embodiment 2 that
is not plainly evident from Shi 069 (e.g., incomplete views in figures 3 and 4, a
need to collapse some layers of figure 5, or any minor differences in proportion of
the curved rims), Shi 069 readily suggests to these minor alterations to one of
ordinary skill to arrive at a hypothetical reference. See Carter, 673 F.2d at 1380;
see also Stevens, 173 F.2d at 1015-16. Finally, considering this hypothetical Shi
069 reference, the ordinary observer would be deceived into believing that the
hypothetical Shi 069 is the same as the claimed design. Intl Seaway, 589 F.3d at
1240-41. Application of such ordinary skill does not make the second embodiment
of the claimed design patentable over Shi 069. Stevens, 173 F.2d at 1015-1016.
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 43 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
63/334
38
With even one embodiment made obvious, the claim is obvious under 35
U.S.C. 103(a) based on Shi 069. See Klein, 987 F.2d at 1570. Therefore, the
Petitioner has established that there is a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on
this ground of rejection.
M. Ground 13: Embodiment 1 Is Obvious Under 103(a) Over Shi547 (Ex. 1008) in View of Perkins 654 (Ex. 1014)
Shi 547 in view of Perkins 654 discloses the same overall visual
impression as embodiment 1. Any differences are de minimus and not sufficient to
justify a finding that the design is patentable. As a result, the claim is invalid as
obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over Shi 547 in view of Perkins 654.
As explained in Section IX.G, Shi 547 is prior art printed publication under
35 U.S.C. 102(b). Perkins 654 is a U.S. Design Patent, filed on Dec. 8, 2009
and published on Apr. 21, 2009, more than one year prior to the filing date of the
731 patent. (Ex. 1014 at 1.) Therefore, Perkins 654 is also a prior art printed
publication under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
Shi 547 is a suitable primary reference, because it discloses a slow cooker
with basically the same design characteristics as the claimed design, under its
broadest reasonable construction. Durling, 101 F.3d at 103. Although Petitioner
argues that Shi 547 needs no secondary reference, if one is necessary, then Perkins
654 can be used to modify Shi 547 to create a design possessing the same overall
visual appearance as embodiments 1. Id. Perkins 654 is an appropriate secondary
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 44 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
64/334
39
reference in this instance because it is also a contemporaneous slow cooker design,
making it so related to Shi 547 that Perkins 654 would suggest the application
of its oval-shaped bowl rims to the set of two round-shaped rims separated by a
single-bowl distance in Shi 547 to arrive at a hypothetical Shi 547-Perkins 654
reference. Moreover, the similarity in rim profile of Shi 547 and Perkins 654
would further suggest the modification of Shi 547 with the oval-shaped rim of
Perkins 654. Perkins 654 is not cumulative because, when combined with Shi
547, the disclosure of the resulting hypothetical reference is not the same as any
other reference cited herein.
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 45 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
65/334
40
Shi 547
Perkins 654
First Embodiment of 731
Second, considering this Shi 547-Perkins 654 reference, the ordinary
observer would be deceived into believing that the Shi 547-Perkins 654 is the
same as the claimed design. Intl Seaway, 589 F.3d at 1240-41. Any remaining
small differences between the Shi 547-Perkins 654 reference and the claimed
design are inconsequential and not sufficient to justify a holding that the claimed
design is patentable. Lamb, 286 F.2d at 611.
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 46 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
66/334
41
With even one embodiment made obvious, the claim is obvious under 35
U.S.C. 103(a) based on Shi 547 in view of Perkins 654. See Klein, 987 F.2d at
1570. Therefore, the Petitioner has established that there is a reasonable likelihood
that it will prevail on this proposed ground of rejection.
N. Ground 14: Embodiments 1, 2, and 3 Are Obvious Under 103(a)Over Shi 269 (Ex. 1010) in View of Perkins 654 (Ex. 1014)
Shi 269 in view of Perkins 654 discloses the same overall visual
impression as embodiments 1, 2, and 3. Any differences are de minimus and not
sufficient to justify a finding that the design is patentable. As a result, the claim is
obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over Shi 269 in view of Perkins 654.
As explained in Sections IX.I and IX.M respectively, Shi 269 and Perkins
654 are a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
Shi 269 is a suitable primary reference, because Shi 269 discloses a slow
cooker with basically the same design characteristics as the claimed design,
under its broadest reasonable construction. Durling, 101 F.3d at 103. Although
Petitioner argues that Shi 269 needs no secondary reference, if one is necessary,
then Perkins 654 can be used to modify Shi 269 to create a design possessing the
same overall visual appearance as embodiments 1, 2 or 3. Id. Perkins 654 is an
appropriate secondary reference in this instance because it is also a
contemporaneous slow cooker design, making it so related to Shi 269 that
Perkins 654 would suggest the application of its oval-shaped rim to the set of two
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 47 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
67/334
42
round-shaped bowls separated by a single-bowl distance in Shi 269 to arrive at a
hypothetical Shi 269-Perkins 654 reference. Moreover, the similarity in rim
profile of Shi 269 and Perkins 654 would further suggest the modification of Shi
269 with the oval-shaped rim of Perkins 654. The Shi 269-Perkins654
reference is not cumulative because the disclosure of the hypothetical reference is
not the same as other references cited herein.
Shi 269
Perkins 654
First Embodiment of 731
Second, considering this Shi 269-Perkins 654 reference, the ordinary
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 48 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
68/334
43
observer would be deceived into believing that the Shi 269-Perkins 654 is the
same as the claimed design. Intl Seaway, 589 F.3d at 1240-41. Any remaining
small differences between the Shi 269-Perkins 654 reference and the claimed
design are inconsequential and not sufficient to justify a holding that the claimed
design is patentable. Lamb, 286 F.2d at 611.
Similarly, when one of ordinary skill considers the figure 5 of Shi 269 in
view of the oval-shape of Perkins 654, the hypothetical reference that results
(which would be similar to the first hypothetical reference except that it would
disclose the oval bowl inserts in addition to the oval rims), the ordinary observer
would be deceived into believing that this second Shi 269-Perkins 654 is the
same as the claimed design. Intl Seaway, 589 F.3d at 1240-41.
Shi 269 Perkins 654
Third Embodiment of 731
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 49 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
69/334
44
Thus, the claim is obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based on Shi 269 in
view of Perkins 654. See Klein, 987 F.2d at 1570. Therefore, the Petitioner has
established a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on this proposed ground of
rejection.
O. Ground 15: Embodiments 1, 2, and 3 Are Obvious Under 103(a)Over Shi 269 (Ex. 1010) in View of Shi 110 (Ex. 1015)
Shi 269 in view of Shi 110 discloses the same overall visual impression as
embodiments 1, 2, and 3. Any differences are de minimus and not sufficient to
justify a finding that the design is patentable. As a result, the claim is obvious
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over Shi 269 in view of Shi 110.
As explained in Section IX.I, Shi 269 is a prior art printed publication under
35 U.S.C. 102(b). Shi 110 is a Chinese invention patent application, filed on
January 28, 1010 and published on October 20, 2010, before the filing date of the
731 patent. (Ex. 1016 at 1.) Therefore, Shi 110 is also prior art printed
publication under 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
Shi 269 is a suitable primary reference, because Shi 269 discloses a slow
cooker with basically the same design characteristics as the claimed design,
under its broadest reasonable construction. Durling, 101 F.3d at 103. Although
Petitioner argues that Shi 269 needs no secondary reference, if one is necessary,
then Shi 110 can be used to modify Shi 269 to create a design possessing the
same overall visual appearance as embodiments 1, 2 or 3. Id. Shi 110 is an
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 50 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
70/334
45
appropriate secondary reference in this instance because it is also a
contemporaneous slow cooker design, making it so related to Shi 269 that Shi
110 would suggest the application of its oval-shaped bowl insert to the set of two
round-shaped bowls separated by a single-bowl distance in Shi 269 to arrive at a
hypothetical Shi 269-Shi 110 reference. Moreover, the similarity in rim profile
of Shi 269 and Shi 110 would further suggest the modification of Shi 269 with
the oval-shaped bowl of Shi 110. The resulting hypothetical reference is not
culmulative because it is not the same as any other reference cited herein.
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 51 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
71/334
46
Shi 269
Shi 110
Third Embodiment of 731
Second, considering this Shi 269-Shi 110 reference, the ordinary observer
would be deceived into believing that the Shi 269-Shi 110 is the same as the
claimed design. Intl Seaway, 589 F.3d at 1240-41. Any remaining small
Case 2:13-cv-02108-KHV-GLR Document 15-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 52 of 58
-
7/27/2019 Select Brands v. Sensio - MTS Brief
72/334
47
differences between the Shi 269-Shi 110 reference and the claimed design are
inconsequential and not sufficient to justify a holding that the claimed design is
patentable. Lamb, 286 F.2d at 611.
Thus, the claim is obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based on Shi 269 in
view of Shi 110. See Klein, 987 F.2d at 1570. Therefore, the Petitioner has
established a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on this proposed ground of
rejection.
P. Ground 16: Embodiment 2 Is Obvious Under 103(a) Over Shi069