Norman International, Inc.v.Andrew J. Toti Testamentary Trust

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 10, 2015

09685312 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 7
Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: February 10, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
NORMAN INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
HUNTER DOUGLAS INC., ANDREW J. TOTI TESTAMENTARY
TRUST, RUSSELL L. HINCKLEY, SR.
(CO-TRUSTEE) and ROBERT F. MILLER (CO-TRUSTEE),
Patent Owner.
_______________

Case IPR2014-01173
Patent 6,648,050 B1
_______________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JAMES P. CALVE and
HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108

IPR2014-01173
Patent 6,648,050 B1

2

I. INTRODUCTION
On July 16, 2014, Norman International, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a
Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5,
6, 9, 10, 13 and 14, (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,658,050
(Ex. 1001, “the ’050 patent”). 35 U.S.C. § 311–319. Hunter Douglas Inc.,
Andrew J. Toti Testamentary Trust, Russell L. Hinckley, Sr. (Co-Trustee)
and Robert F. Miller (Co-Trustee) (collectively, “Patent Owner”) timely
filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter
partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable
likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and
Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we determine Petitioner has not
established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the
unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, the
Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) for the reasons that follow.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Related Matters
Contemporaneous with the instant Petition, Petitioner also filed
Petitions for inter partes review of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,283,192 B1,
6,968,884 B2, and 8,230,896 B2. These Petitions have been assigned the
following case numbers: IPR 2014-01174, IPR 2014-01175 and IPR 2014-
01176, respectively. Of the patents at issue in these proceedings, only U.S.
Patent No. 6,283,192 B1 (“the ’192 patent,” at issue in IPR 2014-01174) is
in the same patent family as the ’050 patent.
IPR2014-01173
Patent 6,648,050 B1

3

Petitioner previously submitted petitions for inter partes review of the
same four patents on December 19–20, 2013. Pet. 2. On June 20, 2014, trial
was instituted on claims 17 and 26 of the ’192 patent in IPR2014-00283
(Paper 9). Trial was denied in the remaining three petitions: IPR2014-
00276 (Paper 11), IPR2014-00282 (Paper 8), and IPR2014-00286 (Paper 8).
Petitioner indicates that Hunter Douglas Inc., filed suit against Petitioner
alleging infringement of the ’050 patent and the aforementioned three
patents in Hunter Douglas Inc. v. Nien Made Enterprise Co., 1:13-cv-01412-
MSK-MJW (D. Colo. May 31, 2013). Pet. 2. Petitioner was served with a
complaint in the district court action on July 16, 2013. Id. at 3; Ex. 1007.
B. The ’050 patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’050 patent relates to spring drive units and the application
thereof in window cover systems. Ex. 1001, 1:21–27. An exemplary
window cover system is depicted in Figure 1, below.
Figure 1, above, is a front elevational view of venetian blind window
IPR2014-01173
Patent 6,648,050 B1

4

cover system 10 in the closed (fully lowered) position. Ex. 1001, 9:29–30.
Window cover system 10 comprises top housing 11 having a spring drive
unit (not shown) mounted therein. Id. at 9:31–33. Blind 12 comprises
horizontal slats 13 and bottom rail 14. Id. at 9:33–34. Spaced cord ladders
17 are suspended from top housing 11 and rungs 21 of ladders 17 are routed
along and/or attached to the underside of individual horizontal slats 13 so
that when ladders 17 are extended fully (lowered) and blind 12 is thus fully
lowered, the weight of each slat 13 is supported by ladders 17, with little
weight on lift cords 16, used to raise and lower blind 12. Id. at 9:47–53. As
blind 12 is raised from the fully extended position, slats 13 are sequentially
collected sequentially on bottom rail 14, starting with the bottom-most slats,
so that an increasing weight is supported on bottom rail 14 and by lift
cords 16. Id. at 9:54–59. In other words, the weight supported by lift cords
16 is at a maximum when blind 12 is open (raised), and at a minimum when
blind 12 is closed (lowered), id. at 9:59–62, thereby necessitating the use of
differing amounts of force to raise or lower blind 12 depending on its
position, id. at 2:20–24.
To equalize the amounts of force required to raise and lower blind 12,
the ’050 patent uses a spring drive unit, illustrated in Figure 13 below.
IPR2014-01173
Patent 6,648,050 B1

5

Figure 13, above, is a top plan view of an exemplary embodiment of
spring drive unit 15 mounted inside housing 11 of venetian blind window
cover system 10. Ex. 1001, 7:1–6, 16:52–53. Spring drive unit 15 includes
shaft 50, conventional flat spring drive 26, or varied torque flat spring drive
31, 41, gear transmission 70, and bevel gear set 60 operatively connecting
spring drive 26, 31, 41, to shaft 50 and gear transmission 70. Id. at 16:52–
53, 15:40–42; see also id. at 33:39–34:60 (challenged claims 1, 5, 9). Lift
cords 16 of venetian blind 12 are wound around lift pulleys 19, mounted on
rotatable shaft 50. Id. at 16:60–65.
Gear transmission 70 comprises power gear 77 intermeshed with idler
gear 75 and intermeshed idler gears 71 and 73. Id. at 15: 51–54. Typically,
the gear ratio of gear transmission 70 is selected so that lift cord pulleys 19
rotate faster than the spring drive 26, 31, 41, thereby diminishing
proportionately the torque exerted by spring 29, 34, 44, as blind 12 is
lowered. Id. at 16:8–11, 19–22. As stated in the ’050 patent:
This permits the use of a more powerful spring to hold a large,
heavy blind in position at the uppermost position, where the
cord-supported weight is the greatest, and proportionately
diminishes the force exerted by the spring at the lowermost,
IPR2014-01173
Patent 6,648,050 B1

6

closed condition when the supported weight is a minimum, so
that the powerful spring does not overpower the weight of the
blind and does not uncontrollably raise the blind.
Id. at 17:37–44.
C. Illustrative Claims
Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 5, 9 and 13 are independent.
Dependent claims 2, 6, 10 and 14 depend, respectively, from claims 1, 5, 9,
and 13. Claims 1 and 5, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A spring drive unit comprising: a base; a rotatable
shaft mounted to the base; a spring mounted to the base and
having a first rotatable end and a second rotatable end; and a
gear transmission comprising a plurality of intermeshed gears,
the gear transmission having a given drive ratio between two of
the gears thereof, and the gear transmission operatively
connected at a first one of the two gears to the second rotatable
end of the spring and operatively connected at the second one
of the two gears to the rotatable shaft, thereby applying the
given drive ratio of the gear transmission between the spring
and the rotatable shaft for altering the ratio of the speed of the
rotatable shaft relative to the rotating speed of the second
rotatable end of the spring and altering the force applied
between the spring and the rotatable shaft.
5. A window cover system of the type comprising: a
base; an extendible window cover; and lift means including lift
cords attached to the cover for raising and lowering the window
cover to selected positions, the improvement comprising:
a spring drive unit connected to the lift cords for assisting
the raising and lowering of the cover to selected
positions, the spring drive unit comprising a spring
mounted to the base and having a first rotatable end
and a second rotatable end; and a gear transmission of
fixed drive ratio; the gear transmission operatively
connected between the second rotatable end of the
IPR2014-01173
Patent 6,648,050 B1

7

spring and the lift means, thereby applying the fixed
ratio of the gear transmission between the second
rotatable end of the spring and the lift cords, for
altering the distance traversed by the cover relative to
the distance traversed by the second rotatable end of
the spring and altering the force applied between the
spring and the cover.
D. Evidence Relied Upon
Petitioner’s patentability challenges are based on the following
references:
References Patents/Printed Publications Exhibit
Tachikawa Japanese Patent Application S54-38648
(English Translation)
1002
Suzuki Japanese Patent Application S53-126478
(English Translation)
1003
Skidmore GB 1,174,127 1004

Petitioner also relies on the declaration of Lawrence E. Carlson,
executed July 16, 2014 (Ex. 1005, “Carlson Declaration”), and the
declaration of Patrick E. Foley, excuted July 16, 2014 (Ex. 1006, “Foley
Declaration”) in support of its patentability challenges. Pet. 4.
E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13,
and 14 of the ’050 patent based on the following grounds:
References Basis Claims challenged
Tachikawa and Suzuki §103 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14
Tachikawa and Skidmore §103 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14

IPR2014-01173
Patent 6,648,050 B1

8

III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Claims of an unexpired patent are interpreted using the broadest
reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent. See Office
Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012);
37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). At this stage of the proceeding, for purposes of this
Decision, we determine no express construction of the claim language is
required.
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 Over
Tachikawa in View of Suzuki
Independent claim 1 recites a “spring drive unit” including a rotatable
shaft, a spring and a gear transmission. Ex. 1001, claim 1. The gear
transmission includes two gears having a given drive ratio therebetween. Id.
One of the two gears is operatively connected to the rotatable shaft. Id. The
other gear is operatively connected to the spring. Id. The gear transmission
alters the force applied between the spring and the rotatable shaft. Id. Each
of independent claims 5, 9, and 13 is directed to a “window cover system.”
Ex. 1001, claims 5, 9, and 13. The window cover systems include an
extendible window cover, lift cords for raising and lowering the window
cover, a spring, and a gear transmission. Id. Each of the gear transmissions
alters the force applied between the spring and the window cover (claims 5
and 9) or a rotatable shaft (claim 13).

IPR2014-01173
Patent 6,648,050 B1

9

1. Tachikawa (Ex. 1002)
Tachikawa Figure 2, reproduced below, presents a vertical front,
cross-sectional view of a device for raising and lowering venetian blinds.
Ex. 1002, 1:2, 4:29–30.
As shown in Figure 2, above, Tachikawa’s device for raising and
lowering venetian blinds comprises upper case 1 having rotatable operating
shaft 2 mounted thereon. Id. at 2:12–13. Drums 3 are attached to multiple
locations on operating shaft 2. Id. at 2:14–16. Tapes 4 are wound onto
drums 3, passed through through-holes in blind slats 5, and coupled to lower
case 6. Id. at 2:14–18. Bevel gear 7 is attached to one end of operating shaft
2 and engages bevel gear 8. Id. at 2:18–21. Chain pulley 10 is fixed to drive
shaft 9 of bevel gear 8. Id. at 2:19–20. Endless chain 11 is hung on chain
pulley 10 and is suspended downward. Id. at 2:21–22.
IPR2014-01173
Patent 6,648,050 B1

10

The blinds are raised or lowered by pulling chain 11 to turn chain
pulley 10, thereby turning operating shaft 2 through engagement and
interlocking of bevel gears 7, 8. See id. at 3:1–5. When the blinds are
raised, tapes 4 wrap around drums 3 that turn in the same direction as
operating shaft 2, pulling lower case 6 and sequentially stacking slats 5 on
lower case 6. Id. at 3:7–9. In the closed, or lower-most position of the
blinds, the load is only that of lower case 6. Id. at 3:9–11. As the blinds are
raised, the torque required to turn operating shaft 2 increases as the load of
slats 5 is applied. Id. at 3:11–14. Conversely, when the blinds are lowered,
the load becomes smaller, decreasing the force necessary to turn operating
shaft 2. Id. at 1:17–19.
To eliminate the problem of torque variance during operation of the
blinds, Tachikawa employs spring 17. See id. at 3:15–22. Spring 17 is
wound between drum 16 and drum 14. Id. at 3:26–28. Drum 16 is rotatably,
axially fitted onto center shaft 15 on support plate 12, mounted inside upper
case 1. Id. at 3:22–23, 28–30. Drum 14 is fixed to shaft tube 13 (through
which operating shaft 2 passes), also mounted on support plate 12. Id. at
3:23–28. Alternatively, drum 14 is fixed to drive shaft 9. Id. at 4:22–24.
[I]n response to the torque of turning [] operating shaft 2 based
on the load P as the blinds are rolled up to the uppermost end, .
. . spring 17 produces a torque T in the opposite direction and
identical to the torque due to the load P by making curvature
radius R small at the starting end wound onto drum 14.
Id. at 3:30–37.
[A]s the blinds are rolled down, the load P decreases gradually,
changing gradually to load p when the blinds are rolled down to
the lowermost end, while the curvature radius of . . . spring 17
is gradually increased from the curvature radius R of the
IPR2014-01173
Patent 6,648,050 B1

11

starting end to the curvature radius r of the terminal end . . . so
that a spring torque t in the opposite direction and identical to
the torque on the operating shaft 2 due to load p is generated at
the terminal end.
Id. at 3:38–48.
2. Suzuki (Ex. 1003)
Suzuki describes a “spring-type balancer” for blinds that alters the
characteristics of a fixed load spring to adjust for variation in slat load as the
blinds rise or fall. Ex. 1003, 2:15, 27–29. A top view of Suzuki’s spring-
type balancer is illustrated in Figure 1, below. Id. at 5:2.

Figure 1, above, shows fixed weight spring 2 mounted on spring reels
1, 3 for winding in a first direction and a second, opposite direction. Id. at
2:31–3:2. Gear 4 is integrated with spring reel 3, and engaged with gear 7
via intermediate gear 5. Id. at 3:2–4. Gear 7 is integrated with rope reel 6.
Id. Rope 8 is wound on conical winding drum 6a along guide groove 6b of
rope reel 6, and has one end attached to cylindrical rope reel 9. Id. at 3:4–7.
Cylindrical rope reel 9, in turn, is integrated with drum 11 on which control
rope 10 is wound. Id. at 3:7–8.
[P]ulling [control] rope 10 rotates [] rope reel 9, and [] rope 8 is
wound from [] rope reel 6 to [] rope reel 9. At the same time, []
gears 4, 5, and 7 rotate [] spring reel 3, which winds the fixed
load spring from [] spring reel 1 to [] spring reel 3.
Id. at 3:8–11. Suzuki discloses “a constant functional relationship between
IPR2014-01173
Patent 6,648,050 B1

12

the number of rotations of [cylindrical rope reel 9] and the winding length of
[] rope [8] is maintained so that the actual load varies as the position of []
fixed weight spring [2] changes.” Id. at 2:11–13. Suzuki discloses, more
specifically, that the spring characteristics of fixed weight spring 2 are
altered by selecting the relationship between the effective radius of the rope
guide groove 6b (“r”) and developed length (“l”) of the rope guide groove
6b. Id. at 4:14–15; cf. id. at 3:17–19 (“[T]he effective radius of the rope
guide groove 6b at an arbitrary position of the rope reel 6, r, . . . is a function
of the developed length, l, of the rope guide groove 6b.”).
3. Analysis
Petitioner contends both Tachikawa and Suzuki disclose window
cover systems comprising spring drive units (Tachikawa’s drums 14, 16 and
spring 17; Suzuki’s spring reels 1, 3 and spring 2) and gear transmissions
(Tachikawa’s bevel gears 7, 8; Suzuki’s intermeshed gears 4, 5, 7). Pet. 28–
30. Petitioner notes Tachikawa’s transmission translates a rotation from
drive shaft 9 (to which chain pulley 10 is fixed) to operating shaft 2 (from
which the blinds are suspended). Id. at 29. Petitioner maintains Suzuki’s
transmission alters the spring characteristics of the spring drive unit to
compensate for load change due to the weight of the blinds as they are raised
or lowered. Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 1003, 2:27–29). Petitioner contends
“Tachikawa and Suzuki demonstrate that, in spring drive units, a
transmission including intermeshed gears such as what is disclosed by
Tachikawa or a geared transmission of intermeshed gears 4, 5, 7 such as
what is disclosed by Suzuki was well known before filing of the 050 Patent.”
Id. at 30. Petitioner thus contends “Tachikawa and Suzuki collectively
disclose the recited gear transmission of claim 1 and render the use of the
IPR2014-01173
Patent 6,648,050 B1

13

recited gear transmission in the recited spring drive unit in claim 1 obvious.”
Id. Petitioner contends, in the alternative, that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the
art would have added Suzuki’s transmission formed by gears 4, 5 and 7 to
Tachikawa’s device” “in order to compensate for different loads (e.g., size,
weight, and/or length blinds).” Id. at 25–26; see id. at 30. Petitioner
contends, more specifically, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
connected Suzuki’s gear 4 to Tachikawa’s spring 17 and Suzuki’s gear 7 to
Tachikawa’s shaft 2. Id. at 32–33; see also id. at 36 (as to independent
claim 5), 38 (as to independent claim 9), and 40 (as to independent claim
13).
Patent Owner contends rope reels 6, 9 are critical components of
Suzuki’s spring-type balancer, and Petitioner has not explained why one of
ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have expected “only three
transmission pieces,” i.e., gears 4, 5, 7, to perform the same function as all
components of Suzuki’s spring-type balancer. Prelim. Resp. 32–33.
Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. Petitioner has not explained
adequately why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
add only gears 4, 5, 7 of Suzuki’s spring-type balancer to Tachikawa’s
system to compensate for different loads, given Suzuki’s disclosure that the
characteristics of fixed weight spring 2 are altered by selecting the
relationship between the effective radius and developed length of rope guide
groove 6b, i.e., there is no mention that the weight compensation adjustment
to spring 2 is provided by gears 4, 5, 7. See Ex. 1003, 4:14–15. The Carlson
Declaration states that Suzuki discloses various transmissions and that a
skilled artisan “would have known to provide the transmission of Suzuki
(including the gear transmission formed by gears 4, 5, and 7) to Tachikawa’s
IPR2014-01173
Patent 6,648,050 B1

14

mechanism for the purpose of enhancing the versatility of the balancing
mechanism, as taught by Suzuki.” Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 76, 79 (emphasis added). It
is unclear from the Carlson Declaration what additional gears or
transmissions would be provided to Tachikawa and the Petition does not
resolve this issue. We further agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s
broad-brush statement that the collective teachings of Tachikawa and Suzuki
render the claim 1 gear transmission obvious is not persuasive because it
fails to provide “sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning
as to why an ordinary artisan, at the time of the invention, would have had a
reason to combine the prior art elements in the manner required by [the]
claims . . . , or how one would have done so with a reasonable expectation of
success.” Prelim. Resp. 30–31 (citing IPR2013-00286, Paper 8 at 16).
The Petitioner’s citation to broad disclosures in the Carlson
Declaration and Foley Declaration does not address this issue. For example,
the Petition asserts that it is obvious to combine Tachikawa and Suzuki for
their teachings and cites to the Carlson Declaration at paragraphs 26–29 and
the Foley Declaration at paragraphs 8 and 21–26. Pet. 24. These portions of
the Carlson and Foley Declarations discuss the level of ordinary skill in the
art. The Petition also cites to the Foley Declaration at paragraphs 8 and 29–
41. However, these paragraphs discuss the state of the art including
Tachikawa and Suzuki and assert that a skilled artisan would have
understood the necessity of combining a spring motor with other basic
mechanical components to lift or manipulate objects like window coverings
based on design needs to combine and substitute a variety of those known
elements according to known methods. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 29–34. The Foley
Declaration concludes by opining that “a person having ordinary skill in the
IPR2014-01173
Patent 6,648,050 B1

15

art of window blinds and coverings would have identified Tachikawa,
Suzuki, and Skidmore as relevant art and had reasons and motivations to
combine the known elements in these publications before November 4,
1997.” Id. ¶ 41. These assertions do not explain why a skilled artisan would
have combined particular features of Suzuki, such as gears 4, 5, 7 with
Tachikawa in some manner. The Petition also cites to paragraphs 74–80 of
the Carlson Declaration, which states that a skilled artisan would have
known that using a transmission in connection with a spring motor could
alter the characteristics and output of the spring motor to allow the
mechanism to handle varying loads and balance window coverings at
intermediate positions and a skilled artisan would have known to provide
Suzuki’s transmission, which includes the gear transmission formed by gears
4, 5, and 7) to Tachikawa’s mechanism to enhance the versatility of the
balancing mechanism. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 78–79.
For the above reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one
of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 over Tachikawa in view of Suzuki.
B. Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 Over
Tachikawa in View of Skidmore
1. Skidmore (Ex. 1004)
Skidmore describes a cord drive arrangement for venetian blinds
whereby a single cord is used for both raising/lowering and tilting the slats.
Ex. 1004, 1:70–74. Skidmore Figure 4, below, is a horizontal section taken
through part of head member 11 of the Figure 1 venetian blind, showing the
cord drive arrangement. See id. at 2:27–37.

IPR2014-01173
Patent 6,648,050 B1

16

As shown in Figure 4, above, the cord drive arrangement includes
gear box 12, having input driving pulley 14 mounted on input shaft 13. Id.
at 2:43–45. To raise and lower slats 41of the venetian blind, endless cord 15
is operated to rotate driving pulley 14. Id. at 2:112–115. Driving pulley 14,
in turn, rotates tape winding drum 16 via spur gears 17, 18, shaft 19, and
spur gears 21, 22, 23, spur gear 22 being free to rotate on shaft 13 on bearing
24. Id. at 2:60–64. Lifting tapes 27, 28 extend from head member 11 to
bottom stick 34 of the venetian blind, and wind onto or off of tape winding
drum 16 to raise or lower bottom stick 34, whereby slats 41 also are raised
or lowered. Id. at 2:115–120. Skidmore discloses that
by changing a small number of cogs[, it] is possible to vary the
gear ratio to meet the requirements of a particular blind. . . . As
a result of this, a suitable gear ratio can be chosen so that even a
large blind can be raised by a force of less than 10 lbs., without
requiring an excessive amount of pulling on the cord 15.
Id. at 4:15–31.
2. Analysis
Petitioner contends Skidmore and Tachikawa “disclose[] similar
features, mechanisms or components for window blinds.” Pet. 42.
IPR2014-01173
Patent 6,648,050 B1

17

Petitioner contends “Skidmore demonstrates that it was well known to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use transmissions in
connection with a blind in order to meet the requirements of a particular
blind.” Id. at 43. Petitioner notes Skidmore’s discloses that the gear ratio of
its transmission (e.g., gears 17, 18, 21, 22, 23) can be varied to meet the
requirement of a particular blind, such that even a large blind can be raised
without excessive force. Id. Petitioner contends “[t]he disclosures by
Tachikawa and Skidmore collectively disclose the recited gear transmission
of claim 1 and render the use of the recited gear transmission in the recited
spring drive unit in claim 1 obvious.” Id. at 45. Petitioner contends,
alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Skidmore’s
transmission (e.g., gears 17, 18, 21, 22, 23) to Tachikawa’s device in order
to meet the requirements of different size, weight, and/or length blinds. Id.
46. Petitioner asserts, more specifically, that “[i]t would have been obvious
to connect Skidmore’s first gear 17 to Tachikawa’s spring 17,” and “to
connect Skidmore’s second gear 23 to Tachikawa’s rotatable shaft 2.” Id. at
47. Petitioner raises similar contentions with respect to independent claims
5, 9, and 13. Id. at 52–53 (as to claim 5), 55 (as to claim 9), 57 (as to claim
13).
Patent Owner argues significant modifications to Skidmore’s gear box
12 would be required in order to make the Petitioner’s proposed
combination. Prelim. Resp. 34. Patent Owner argues, more specifically,
that Skidmore’s gear box 12 includes components other than gears 17, 18,
21, 22, 23, and Petitioner has not explained why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have added only gears 17, 18, 21, 22, 23 to Tachikawa’s device.
Id. at 37. Patent Owner also argues, in general, that Petitioner has not
IPR2014-01173
Patent 6,648,050 B1

18

provided the requisite articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to
support a legal conclusion of obviousness. Id. at 37.
Tachikawa describes the use of a spring to eliminate the problem of
torque variance during operation of blinds, noting that the torque required to
turn the operating shaft increases as the blind is raised. Ex. 1002, 3:15–22.
By contrast, Skidmore uses a gear transmission wherein gear ratio can be
adjusted so that an excessive amount of force is not required to raise a blind.
Ex. 1004, 4:15–31. Petitioner contends it would have been obvious to add
Skidmore’s gear transmission to Tachikawa’s device “to meet the
requirements of different loads (e.g., size, weight, and/or length blinds).”
See Pet. 46. However, Petitioner has not explained adequately why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification, because
Tachikawa indicates spring 17 already serves the function of adjusting the
force needed to raise varying loads. See Ex. 1002, 1:23–2:7 (describing the
spring as having the effect that only a small, constant force is required to
manipulate the operating shaft when raising or lowering the blinds).
Petitioner has not identified evidence on this record indicating that addition
of a gear transmission of the type disclosed in Skidmore would have
addressed a need not met by Tachikawa’s spring 17.
For the above reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one
of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 over Tachikawa in view of Skidmore.

IPR2014-01173
Patent 6,648,050 B1

19

V. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated there is a
reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at
least one of the challenged claims.
VI. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.

IPR2014-01173
Patent 6,648,050 B1

20

PETITIONER:

Bing Ai
Kourtney Mueller
Perkins Coie LLP
Ai-ptab@perkinscoie.com
KMerrill@perkinscoie.com

PATENT OWNER:

Kristopher Reed
Darin Gibby
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
HD-Norman-IPR@kilpatricktownsend.com
dgibby@kilpatricktownsend.com