Fontaine Engineered Products, Inc.v.Raildecks (2009), Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2013

13035899 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2013)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 8
571-272-7822 Entered: December 13, 2013

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

FONTAINE ENGINEERED PRODUCTS, INC.
Petitioner

v.

RAILDECKS (2009), INC.
Patent Owner
____________

Case IPR2013-00361
Patent 8,353,647 B2

Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, RAMA G. ELLURU,
and JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108
Case IPR2013-00361
Patent 8,353,647 B2

2
Petitioner, Fontaine Engineered Products, Inc., filed a corrected
petition (Paper 5, “Pet.”)
1
to institute an inter partes review of claims 14-25
of U.S. Patent No. 8,353,647 B2 (“the ’647 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 311 et seq. Patent Owner, Raildecks (2009), Inc., filed a preliminary
response to the petition (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 314. For the reasons that follow, we deny inter partes
review of all the challenged claims.
I. BACKGROUND
The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which states:
THRESHOLD – The Director may not authorize an inter partes
review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
information presented in the petition filed under section 311
and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
Petitioner challenges claims 14-25 of the ’647 patent as anticipated
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and/or as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Pet. 7-8. We deny the petition as discussed below.
Petitioner states that it is not aware of any other judicial or
administrative matter that would affect, or be affected by, a decision in this
proceeding. Pet. 2. Concurrently with the present petition, Petitioner filed a
petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,342,784 B2, which is
related to the ’647 patent by claiming priority to the same three provisional
applications. Id.

1
The Board’s decision refers to Fontaine’s corrected petition filed on
July 19, 2013. Paper 5.
Case IPR2013-00361
Patent 8,353,647 B2

3
A. The ’647 Patent (Ex. 1101)
The ’647 patent, titled “Collapsible Intermodal Transport Platform,”
issued on January 15, 2013. The application, from which the ’647 patent
issued, claims the benefit of provisional applications filed on
September 29, 2010, January 14, 2011, and February 8, 2011, respectively.
The ’647 patent generally is directed to equipment for transporting
cargo using multiple modes, such as railroad, truck or ship, in a single trip,
without requiring the cargo to be moved from one transport device to
another. Ex. 1101, 1:29-32.
The disclosed transport platform has three primary positions: lift/haul,
stowed, and extended load. Id. at 7:39-46. Figure 3 of the ’647 patent is
reproduced below.

Figure 3 of the ’647 patent illustrates a collapsible, intermodal transport
platform 100 in a lift position. Id. at 7:37-39. At each end of transport
platform 100 are two support posts 110, located approximately twenty feet
from the longitudinal centerline of the platform. Id. at 8:15-17. During
empty transport, the support member is rotated down to the deck bed surface
(“the stowed position”). Id. at 3:27-29. Figure 7 illustrates transport
Case IPR2013-00361
Patent 8,353,647 B2

4
platform 100 after it has been lowered into the stowed position. Id. at 12:65-
66. Figure 7 is reproduced below.

Figure 7 illustrates an intermodal transport platform in a stowed position,
wherein stacking blocks 116 have been installed onto the stacking block
posts. Id. at 13:22-23. Stacking blocks 116 form the highest point along the
top profile of transport platform 100. Id. at 24-26. Thus, when another
transport platform 100, or other container, is seated atop of the one
illustrated in Figure 7, none of the collapsed structures will receive any load.
Id. at 13:26-28. Each stacking block 116 is positioned over a stacking block
post, and pinned in place with a stacking block retaining pin. Id. at 13:33-
35. When installed, stacking blocks 116 rest over the ends of axles 190 and
provide an inwardly-extending flat surface on which another flatbed or
convention container may be stacked. Id. at 13:35-38. Figure 9 is
reproduced below.

Case IPR2013-00361
Patent 8,353,647 B2

5

Figure 9 illustrates four, transport platforms 100 in the stowed position,
stacked one atop the other. Id. at 14:26-27.
B. Challenged Claims
Claim 14 of the ’647 patent is the only challenged independent claim,
and claims 15-25 depend from claim 14, either directly or indirectly.
Claim 14 is representative of the challenged claims, and is reproduced
below.
14. A transport platform having a substantially rectangular loading
surface, the transport platform comprising:
a frame on which the loading surface is disposed;
a plurality of first braces, each first brace having a first end attached to
the frame and a second end extending from and rotatable about the
first end, each first brace rotatable between a stowed position at
which the second end is proximate to the loading surface, and a lift
position at which the second end supports a first lifting fitment a
set horizontal distance from a longitudinal centerline of the loading
surface; and,
a stacking block mounted to each first brace such that, upon rotating
the plurality of first braces into the stowed position, each stacking
block provides a second lifting fitment at the same set horizontal
distance from the longitudinal centerline of the loading surface.

Case IPR2013-00361
Patent 8,353,647 B2

6
C. The Prior Art
Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
Clive-Smith US 4,162,737 Jul. 31, 1979 (Ex. 1111)
(“the ’737 patent”)
Clive-Smith US 4,591,307 May 27, 1986 (Ex. 1110)
(“the ’307 patent”)
Clive-Smith US 5,275,301 Jan. 4, 1994 (Ex. 1103)
(“the ’301 patent”)
Gonska US 5,639,174 Jun. 17, 1997 (Ex. 1108)
(“the ’174 patent”)
Clive-Smith US 5,644,992 Jul. 8, 1997 (Ex. 1112)
(“the ’992 patent”)
Clive-Smith US 6,317,981 B1 Nov. 20, 2001 (Ex. 1102)
(“the ’981 patent”)
Miller US 6,513,442 Feb. 4, 2003 (Ex. 1109)
(“the ’442 patent”)
Wang US 6,866,160 B2 Mar. 15, 2005 (Ex. 1102)
(“the ’160 patent”)
Sadkin US 7,823,739 B2 Nov. 2, 2010 (Ex. 1004)
(“the ’739 patent”)
Adamson GB 2097364A Nov. 3, 1982 (Ex. 1113)
(“the GB ’364 reference”)
Gloystein EP 0893366 A2 Jan. 27, 1999 (Ex. 1105)
(“the EP ’366 reference”)
Qiaofeng CN1240753 A Jan. 12, 2000 (Ex. 1104)
(“the CN ’753 reference”)
Clive-Smith GB 2376014 Apr. 12, 2002 (Ex. 1107)
(“the GB ’014 reference”)
Case IPR2013-00361
Patent 8,353,647 B2

7
Clive-Smith Cowley WO 2006/005920 Jan. 19, 2006 (Ex. 1106)
(“the WO ’920 reference”)

D. The Asserted Grounds
Petitioner challenges independent claim 14 of the ’647 patent, upon
which our analysis is based, on the following grounds. Pet. 7-8. We do not
identify the remaining asserted grounds because they are too numerous, i.e.,
approximately 150 grounds, when counted by individual claims. See Prelim.
Resp. 20-21, n. 3 (summarizing asserted grounds).
Reference[s] Basis
’160 patent § 102(b)
’301 patent § 102(b)
CN ’753 reference § 102(b)
EP ’366 reference § 102(b)
WO ’920 reference § 102(b)
GB ’014 reference and ’174 patent § 103(a)
GB ’014 reference and ’442 patent § 103(a)
GB ’014 reference and ’307 patent § 103(a)
GB ’014 reference and ’737 patent § 103(a)
GB ’014 reference and ’992 patent § 103(a)
GB ’014 reference and GB ’364 reference § 103(a)

Case IPR2013-00361
Patent 8,353,647 B2

8
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Interpretation
Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the America
Invents Act (“AIA”), the Board interprets claims using the “broadest
reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
[they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial
Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are
given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Translogic
Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “Absent claim language
carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should only limit the claim based on
the specification . . . when [it] expressly disclaim[s] the broader definition.”
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed Cir. 2004). “Although an inventor is
indeed free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her invention,
this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In
re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Petitioner does not propose any interpretations of claim terms other
than their ordinary and customary meanings.
2
Pet. 9-10. Petitioner
maintains that each claim term should be interpreted to encompass at least
the corresponding structure disclosed in the ’647 patent examples, but

2
Patent Owner alleges that despite the Board’s directive to Petitioner to
provide claim constructions, Petitioner filed a corrected petition, but
provided no claim constructions. Prelim. Resp. 6-7. Patent Owner requests
that the Board deny the petition on that basis. Id. at 7, n. 2. We decline to
deny Petitioner’s petition on that basis because Petitioner contends that the
ordinary and customary meanings of claim terms should apply.
Case IPR2013-00361
Patent 8,353,647 B2

9
should not be limited to those specific examples. Id. at 10.
For purposes of this decision, we interpret certain claim language as
follows:
1. “stacking block” (Claim 14)
Independent claim 14 recites “a stacking block mounted to each first
brace . . ..” Patent Owner proposes that “stacking block” should be
interpreted as “[a] raised block extending above the remaining components
of a stowed transport platform for supporting a container or platform.”
Prelim. Resp. 10.
In support, Patent Owner refers to the ’647 patent Specification,
which states that “[t]he stacking blocks 116 form the highest point along the
top profile of the transport platform 100. Accordingly, when another
transport platform 100 or other intermodal container is seated on top of the
one shown, none of the collapsed structure will receive any load.” Prelim.
Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 1101, 13:24-28). We are persuaded that the ’647 patent
Specification supports, in part, Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation.
Based on the Specification, we interpret “stacking block” as a block that
forms the highest point along the top profile of the transport platform when
in a stowed position such that when another transport platform or other
intermodal container is seated on top, none of the collapsed structure will
receive any load.

B. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
Independent claim 14, the only challenged independent claim, recites
“a stacking block mounted to each first brace.” Petitioner challenges
independent claim 14 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), based on five
Case IPR2013-00361
Patent 8,353,647 B2

10
anticipation grounds (Pet. 18-23), and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), based
on six grounds of obviousness (Pet. 23-36).
3
Each of the six obviousness
grounds includes the GB ’014 reference. Id. Because we determine that
Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that any of the five
asserted anticipation references discloses “a stacking bock mounted to each
first brace” or that any of the six asserted obviousness combinations teaches
or suggests “a stacking bock mounted to each first brace,” we decline to
institute an inter partes review based on Petitioner’s challenges to claim 14
of the ’647 patent.
1. Anticipation Grounds
a. ’160 patent
Petitioner refers to a portion of the ’160 patent discussing three
different elements: bottom plate 28, apertures 27, and twist locks 24, as
teaching the recited “stacking block.” Id. (citing Ex. 1102, 2:62-63, 4:10-12;
Figs. 1-6). Patent Owner notes, “[p]resumably, Petitioner is suggesting that
‘bottom plate 28’ of Fig. 2 is a stacking block.” Prelim. Resp. 26.
Petitioner has not provided persuasive evidence that “bottom plate 28”
forms the highest point along the top profile of the transport platform when
in a stowed position such that when another transport platform or other
intermodal container is seated on top, none of the collapsed structure will
receive any load. See Ex. 1102, Figs. 1, 2, and 11; Prelim. Resp. 26.
Figure 2 from the ’160 patent is reproduced below.

3
While Petitioner cites disclosures from the references corresponding to
each element, Petitioner does not provide an accompanying explanation or
argument as to why the references disclose or teach a particular limitation.

Case IPR2013-00361
Patent 8,353,647 B2

11

Figure 2 of the ’160 patent illustrates bottom plate 28. Figure 2 of the
’160 patent does not show persuasively that bottom plate 28 constitutes the
recited “stacking block,” as we interpret that term.
Petitioner also has not provided persuasive evidence that “twist lock
24” is a stacking block because Figure 4 indicates that twist lock 24 is used
for attaching one platform to another and not for receiving the load of
stacked items, such as another platform for example, when in a stowed
position. See Prelim. Resp. 26.
b. ’301 patent
Petitioner contends that the ’301 patent’s fitment 16 teaches the
recited “stacking block.” Pet. 20. Petitioner cites disclosure stating that
fitment 16 is “accessible at the top surface of the stowed container.” Pet. 20
Case IPR2013-00361
Patent 8,353,647 B2

12
(citing Ex. 1103, 3:43-52; Fig. 1). Petitioner has not provided persuasive
evidence, however, that fitment 16 forms the highest point along the top
profile of the transport platform when in a stowed position such that when
another transport platform or other intermodal container is seated on top,
none of the collapsed structure will receive any load. Figure 1 from the
’301 patent is reproduced below.

Figure 1 of the ’301 patent illustrates fitment 16. This figure does not show
persuasively that fitment 16 teaches or suggests the recited “stacking block,”
as we interpret that term. See Prelim. Resp. 27.

Case IPR2013-00361
Patent 8,353,647 B2

13
c. CN ’753 reference
Petitioner contends that the CN ’753 reference’s “near pins 24”
disclose the “stacking block.” Pet. 21. Petitioner states that near pins 24 are
located at the bottoms of posts 5 in Figures 1 and 3 (not illustrated), and are
illustrated in Figure 6 at element 47 facing upward when post 5 is in the
stowed position. Id. Petitioner has not provided persuasive evidence that
either near pins 24 or element 47 forms the highest point along the top
profile of the transport platform when in a stowed position such that when
another transport platform or other intermodal container is seated on top,
none of the collapsed structure will receive any load. Ex. 1104, Figs. 1, 3,
and 6; see Prelim. Resp. 28. Indeed, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s
allegation (Prelim. Resp. 28) that Figure 6 of the CN ’753 reference shows
that the collapsed post 5 receives the load of any items stacked atop, such as
another platform. Figure 6 from the CN ’753 reference is reproduced below.

Figure 6 of the CN ’753 reference illustrates collapsible post 5 in a stowed
position and shows that post 5 would receive the load of any items stacked
atop.

Case IPR2013-00361
Patent 8,353,647 B2

14
d. EP ’366 reference
Petitioner contends that “[t]he stacking block illustrated at 34 in Fig. 5
and shown in Figs. 8 and 9” of the EP ’366 reference teaches the recited
“stacking block.” Pet. 22. Petitioner has not provided persuasive evidence
that element 34 forms the highest point along the top profile of the transport
platform when in a stowed position such that when another transport
platform or other intermodal container is seated on top, none of the collapsed
structure will receive any load. Ex. 1105, Figs. 5, 6, 8, and 9; Prelim. Resp.
28-29. Figure 5 from the EP ’366 reference is reproduced below.

Figure 5 of the EP ’366 reference illustrates element 34. Figure 5 does not
show that element 34 teaches or suggests the recited “stacking block,” as we
Case IPR2013-00361
Patent 8,353,647 B2

15
interpret that term. Indeed, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s assertion
(Prelim. Resp. 28) that the collapsed posts in the EP ’366 reference receive
the load of any items stacked atop, such as another platform. Prelim. Resp.
29; see also Ex. 1105 at Fig. 6.
e. WO ’920 reference
Petitioner states that “[s]tacking blocks including fitments (not
numbered) are mounted on the bottom portions of the folding end posts,
adjacent to the pivot points, as illustrated in Figs. 10A and 10B (in the
upright positions) and Fig. 10C (in the folded, stowed positions)” and that
this description teaches the recited “stacking block.” Pet. 23. Petitioner has
not provided persuasive evidence that the referenced element forms the
highest point along the top profile of the transport platform when in a stowed
position such that when another transport platform or other intermodal
container is seated on top, none of the collapsed structure will receive any
load. Ex. 1106, Figs. 10A, 10B, and 10C. Figure 10C from the WO ’920
reference is reproduced below.
Case IPR2013-00361
Patent 8,353,647 B2

16

Figure 10C of the WO ’920 reference illustrates the transport platform in the
stowed position. Figure 10C of the WO ’920 reference does not show that
the element referenced by Petitioner as teaching the recited “stacking block”
(allegedly at the bottom of the folded posts) teaches or suggests the recited
“stacking block,” as we interpret that term.
In sum, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on the ground that independent
claim 14 is anticipated by the ’160 patent, the ’301 patent, the CN ’753
reference, the EP ’366 reference, or the WO ’920 reference.
2. Obviousness Grounds
In each of the six obviousness grounds challenging claim 14,
Petitioner alleges that the GB ’014 reference teaches a stacking block
(Figure 2B at element 16) mounted to a post (Figure 2B at element 13) such
Case IPR2013-00361
Patent 8,353,647 B2

17
that the stacking block rotates with the post from a lift position (Figure 2A)
to a stowed position for use in stacking platforms (Figure 5). Pet. 15.
According to Petitioner, a stacking block that can be used for both stacking
and as a fitment, as taught by the other six references, could be substituted
for the stacking block of the GB ’014 reference to achieve the invention
recited in claim 14 of the ’647 patent. Id. at 15-17. Petitioner does not
explain why one combination is any different than another.
Petitioner asserts that the GB ’014 reference illustrates a “stacking
block” at element 16 in Fig. 2B mounted to brace 13. Pet. 25. Petitioner
further states that “[t]he stacking block is shown in Fig. 5 in use as a
stacking block (but not numbered) when the braces 13’ are in the stowed
position and a number of platforms are stacked.” Id. We are not persuaded
by Petitioner’s assertion.
Figure 2B from the GB ’014 reference is reproduced below.
4

4
We note that the element labeled as element “16” in Figure 1A of the
GB ’014 reference is different than the element labeled as element “16” in
Figures 2A and 2B. Because Figure 1A’s “element 16” is not mounted to
brace 13, as alleged by Petitioner (Pet. 25), we do not refer to that figure in
our analysis. See Ex. 1107, p. 9, ll. 20-24 (emphasis added); see also id. at
p. 10, l. 33; Fig. 1A.
Case IPR2013-00361
Patent 8,353,647 B2

18

Figure 2B identifies element 16 at the bottom of post 13. Ex. 1107, Fig. 2B.
Petitioner has not pointed to any disclosure in the GB ’014 reference that
discusses this element or identifies its function. We are not persuaded,
however, that the element labeled as element “16” in Figures 2A and 2B
teaches the recited “stacking block.” See Prelim. Resp. 30 (contending that
element 16 in Figures 2A and 2B “appears to assist with limiting outward
splay by contacting a lower fitment”).
For example, Figure 2C does not show that the element Petitioner
refers to as teaching the recited “stacking block” (not labeled) forms the
highest point along the top profile of the transport platform. Figure 2C from
the GB ’014 reference is reproduced below.
Case IPR2013-00361
Patent 8,353,647 B2

19

Figure 2C illustrates a transport platform, in the stowed position, with the
element (not labeled in Figure 2C and labeled as element “16” in Figure 2B)
that Petitioner refers to as the recited “stacking block.” Figure 2C shows
that strut 19 covers that element (located at the bottom of post 13) and does
not show persuasively that it forms the highest point along the top profile of
the transport platform when in a stowed position such that when another
transport platform or other intermodal container is seated on top, none of the
collapsed structure will receive any load. See Prelim. Resp. 30.
We also are not persuaded by Petitioner’s allegation that stacking
blocks are shown in Figure 5 when the braces 13’ are in the stowed position
and a number of platforms are stacked. Pet. 25. Figure 5 from the GB ’014
reference is reproduced below.

Case IPR2013-00361
Patent 8,353,647 B2

20
Figure 5 from the GB ’014 reference illustrates transport platforms stacked
atop each other in their stowed positions. Figure 5 does not provide
sufficient detail to establish persuasively that element 16, as labeled in
Figure 2B, receives any of the load of stacked items. See Prelim. Resp. 31.
We also do not find persuasive the conclusory statement by Petitioner’s
declarant that element 16 is a “stacking block.” Ex. 1114, ¶ 25.
Thus, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that the
GB ’014 reference teaches a “stacking block” that could be combined with
the stacking blocks allegedly taught by each of the references that Petitioner
proposes to combine with the GB ’014 reference. Specifically, none of the
six references that Petitioner proposes to combine with the GB ’014
reference cures the deficiencies of the GB ’014 reference because none
teaches the recited “stacking block mounted on a first brace.”
In its claim charts, Petitioner appears to correlate “shipping corner
20c” of the ’174 patent (Ex. 1108, Fig. 3), “connectors 7” of the ’442 patent
(Ex. 1109, Fig. 5), “corner fitting 1” (Ex. 1110, Fig. 2) of the ’307 patent,
“stub corner post 9” of the ’737 patent (Ex. 1111, Fig. 4), “top plate 51” of
the ’992 patent (Ex. 1112, Fig. 4), and “bracket 6” of the GB ’364 reference
(Ex. 1113, Fig. 2) to the recited “stacking block.” Pet 23- 36; see Prelim.
Resp. 32-33. Petitioner, however, provides no detailed narrative explanation
satisfactorily supporting its assertion that those elements teach the recited
“stacking block.” Moreover, we determine that Petitioner has not provided
persuasive evidence that any of those elements is mounted on a “first brace,”
which as recited by claim 14, must be rotatable. Further, Petitioner has not
persuasively shown that any of those elements forms the highest point along
the top profile of the transport platform when in a stowed position such that
Case IPR2013-00361
Patent 8,353,647 B2

21
when another transport platform or other intermodal container is seated on
top, none of the collapsed structure will receive any load. See Prelim. Resp.
32-33.
In addition, Petitioner has not provided a sufficient reason to combine
the GB ’014 reference with any of the six other asserted references. See KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (the relevant inquiry for
the alleged grounds of unpatentability based on obviousness is whether the
petitioner has set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). Petitioner
does not provide persuasive evidence to support its assertion that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the GB ’014
reference with any of the six asserted references to achieve the recited
invention. Pet. 16-17. Petitioner’s assertion that the “the stacking blocks of
the references of Section VI(B)(I) are a predictable variation of the stacking
blocks of the GB ’014 reference and would improve the cargo transport
platform of the GB ’014 reference in the same manner that they improve the
cargo transport platforms of their disclosing references” (Pet. 17) is merely
conclusory attorney argument. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40
(Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In sum, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable
likelihood that the GB ’014 reference, alone or in combination with any of
the other asserted references, discloses or teaches the recited “stacking
block” of claim 14. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner
has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on the
ground that independent claim 14 is rendered obvious by the GB ’014
Case IPR2013-00361
Patent 8,353,647 B2

22
reference in combination with any of the ’174 patent, the ’442 patent, the
’307, the ’737 patent, the ’992 reference, or the GB ’364 reference.
3. Dependent Claims 15-25
Petitioner does not demonstrate satisfactorily how any additional
references asserted against the dependent claims cure the deficiencies of the
references asserted against claim 14 by teaching the recited “stacking
block.” See Prelim. Resp. 36 (“Petitioner also provides no explanation of
how these combinations align with the base limitations of claim 14.”).
Therefore, because Petitioner has not demonstrated with a reasonable
likelihood that claim 14 is unpatentable as anticipated or rendered obvious,
Petitioner likewise has not demonstrated with a reasonable likelihood that
dependent claims 15-25 are anticipated or rendered obvious.

C. Conclusion
Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least
one challenged claim is unpatentable based on the asserted grounds. We,
therefore, do not institute an inter partes review on any of the asserted
grounds as to any of the challenged claims.

III. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the petition is denied as to all challenged claims of
the ’647 patent.
Case IPR2013-00361
Patent 8,353,647 B2

23
PETITIONER:

R. Blake Johnston
patentschgo@dlapiper.com

PATENT OWNER:

Thomas McDonough
tmcdonough@ngelaw.com

Mike Turner
mturner@ngelaw.com