Tre Milano, LLCv.TF3 LIMITED

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 2, 2016

13639053 (P.T.A.B. May. 2, 2016)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 37
571-272-7822 Entered: May 2, 2016

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

TRE MILANO, LLC,
Petitioner,

v.

TF3 LIMITED,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Tre Milano, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
requesting inter partes review of claims 1–5 and 11 of U.S. Patent No.
8,651,118 B2 (“the ’118 patent”). TF3 Limited (“Patent Owner”) timely
filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition. We
instituted trial as to claims 1–5 and 11 of the ’118 patent on the following
proposed grounds of unpatentability:
A. Anticipation of claims 1–5 and 11 by Gnaga;1 and
B. Anticipation of claims 1–5 and 11 by Hoshino.2
Paper 7, 24 (“Dec. to Inst.”).
After institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner’s Response
(Paper 18, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 24, “Reply”).
After receiving our authorization to do so (Paper 27), Patent Owner filed a
Sur-Reply (Paper 28).3 An oral hearing was conducted on March 17, 2016.
A transcript of the oral hearing is included in the record. Paper 36 (“Tr.”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This decision is a Final
Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 as to the

1 U.S. Patent No. 4,148,330, issued Apr. 10, 1979 (Ex. 1004, “Gnaga”).
2 Japanese Patent Application No. 61-10102, published Jan. 21, 1986 (Ex.
1005, “Hoshino”). Petitioner submitted an English translation of Hoshino as
Exhibit 1006.
3 Patent Owner filed objections to evidence that Petitioner submitted with its
Reply. See Paper 26. However, neither party filed a motion to exclude in
this proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) (“A motion to exclude evidence
must be filed to preserve any objection.”); Office Patent Trial Practice
Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“A party wishing to
challenge the admissibility of evidence must object timely to the evidence at
the point it is offered and then preserve the objection by filing a motion to
exclude the evidence.”). Accordingly, we do not address Patent Owner’s
evidentiary objections.
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

3
patentability of claims 1–5 and 11. For the reasons discussed below,
Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that these
claims are unpatentable.
A. Related Proceedings
The parties inform us that the ’118 patent is the subject of a lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Conair Corp. v. Tre
Milano, Case No. 3:14-cv-01554-AWT. See Pet. 1; Paper 5, 2.
B. The ’118 Patent
The ’118 patent relates to a hair styling device. Ex. 1001, Title,
Abstract. The Specification describes that the device permits the removal of
a formed curl without being unwound, which better preserves the curvature
of a wound curl compared to devices in which the wound curl is forced to
unwind as it is removed. Id. at col. 2, ll. 9–21. The device is shown in
Figures 1 and 2, reproduced below:

IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

4

Figure 1 is a perspective of part of the hair styling device with some
of the body removed. Id. at col. 4, ll. 29–32. Figure 2 shows the complete
hair styling device. Id. at col. 4, ll. 33–35. As shown in Figures 1 and 2,
device 10 has chamber 16 within body 12. Id. at col. 4, ll. 50–51. Length of
hair 26 is introduced into chamber 16 through primary opening 24. Id. at
col. 4, ll. 58–60. The rotation of rotatable element 34 causes leading edge
38 to capture length of hair 26 and pull it through primary opening 24 into
chamber 16. Id. at col. 5, ll. 11–17. Continued rotation of rotatable element
34 causes the proximal portion of length of hair 26 to rotate around elongate
member 20 until it engages abutment 52, and the distal portion of length of
hair 26 is gradually wound around elongate member 20 between rotatable
element 34 and abutment 52. Id. at col. 5, ll. 47–50, 54–60.
Chamber 16 can be heated, such that length of hair 26 is styled by
remaining within chamber 16, curled around the cylindrical elongate
member 20, for a predetermined length of time. Id. at col. 5, l. 65–col. 6, l.
4, col. 6, ll. 23–25. At the end of a styling operation, abutment 52 moves to
its open position, which allows hair 26, now curled, to pass out of secondary
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

5
opening 50 by sliding along elongate member 20 and off its free end. Id. at
col. 6, ll. 30–37.
C. Illustrative Claim
Claim 1, the sole independent claim challenged, is an apparatus claim
from which each of claims 2–5 and 11 depends. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
subject matter at issue, and is reproduced below:
1. A hair styling device having:
a body defining a chamber adapted to accommodate a
length of hair, the chamber having a primary opening through
which the length of hair may pass into the chamber;
a rotatable element adapted to engage the length of hair
adjacent to the primary opening;
an elongate member around which, in use, the length of
hair is wound by the rotatable element, the elongate member
having a free end;
the chamber having a secondary opening through which
the length of hair may pass out of the chamber, the secondary
opening being located adjacent to the free end; and
a movable abutment which can engage the length of hair
in use, the movable abutment having an open position in which
the length of hair can pass through the secondary opening, and
a closed position in which the length of hair is retained within
the chamber, wherein the movable abutment is located within
one of (i) the secondary opening, (ii) the primary opening, and
(iii) a passageway connecting the secondary opening to the
primary opening.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
patent in which they appear. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

6
1268, 1278–1279 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress implicitly approved the
broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the
standard was properly adopted by PTO regulation”), cert. granted sub nom.
Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 890 (mem.) (2016); 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.100(b). Under that standard, we give claim terms their ordinary and
customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term
must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
1. “Chamber”
In the Decision to Institute, we construed “chamber” in claim 1 to
mean “a partially enclosed space.” Dec. to Inst. 6–7. Neither party disputes
this construction. See PO Resp. 9–12; Reply 14–15. Therefore, for the
reasons set forth in the Decision to Institute, we maintain our construction of
that term.
2. “Free End”
Claim 1 recites that the elongate member has a “free end.” Patent
Owner’s Response does not affirmatively argue for any construction for this
term,4 but contends that the construction adopted in our Decision to Institute

4 Patent Owner’s Response does refer to the construction it proposed earlier
in this proceeding, PO Resp. 12, suggesting that Patent Owner still maintains
that its proposal from the Preliminary Response should be adopted. But the
Patent Owner Response does not cite any evidence or provide any argument
in support of its earlier proposed construction. In the “Claim Construction”
section of the Declaration of Dr. Daniel Nosenchuck, Patent Owner’s
declarant, Dr. Nosenchuck simply notes the construction from our previous
decisions, and does not opine that a different construction should be adopted
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

7
is erroneous and inconsistent with statements in our subsequent Decision on
Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing. See PO Resp. 9–12. To understand
Patent Owner’s arguments, we briefly revisit the discussions of this term’s
meaning in these earlier decisions.
In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner proposed that “free end”
should be construed to mean “an end of an elongate member that is devoid
of any structure that would impede the translational release of the hair at the
end of the elongate member.” Prelim. Resp. 15. In the Decision to Institute,
we found that Patent Owner’s proposed construction conflicted with the
preferred embodiment of the ’118 patent, as Figure 2 shows that when
abutment 52 is in the closed position, abutment 52 prevents hair wound
around elongate member from sliding off the free end. Dec. to Inst. 8 (“A
claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment ‘is rarely, if ever,
correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.’”) (quoting
Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1290
(Fed. Cir. 2010)).
For the purposes of the Decision to Institute, we construed “free end”
to mean “an end of the elongate member that is unsupported when the
movable abutment is in the open position.” Id. at 9. The Decision noted that
this construction was consistent with the figures of the ’118 patent as well as
the dictionary definition of “free” that Patent Owner quoted in the
Preliminary Response. Id. at 8–9; Prelim. Resp. 15 (quoting a definition of
“free” as “[n]ot physically restrained, obstructed, or fixed; unimpeded”). In
particular, the Decision found that

or otherwise state any disagreement with our earlier construction. See Ex.
2001 ¶ 13.
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

8
based on the Figures in the ’118 patent, abutment 52 may
provide some structural support to the free end 20 when
abutment 52 is in the closed position. See Ex. 1001, Figs. 1–4.
When abutment 52 is in the open position, however, the free
end of elongate member 20 is not structurally supported.
Id. at 9.
Patent Owner filed a Request for Rehearing, arguing that the Decision
to Institute incorrectly construed this term. See Paper 9 (“Req. Reh’g”).
Patent Owner argued, among other things, that the construction was flawed
because it “presumes, contrary to the Board’s initial speculation that it may
provide a structural support function, that the abutment in fact does
definitively provide support in a closed position.” Id. at 9. On this basis,
Patent Owner argued that the construction contradicts the Specification’s
disclosure of alternative embodiments in which the abutment is located
within the primary opening or between the primary and secondary openings.
Id. at 10, 12–13 (quoting Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 22–39, col. 7, l. 65–col. 8, l. 5).
In denying Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing, we explained that
this argument misinterpreted the construction in the Decision to Institute:
The Decision’s construction of “free end” — “an end of the
elongate member that is unsupported when the movable
abutment is in the open position” (Dec. 9) — does not require
that the free end is supported when the movable abutment is in
the closed position. Accordingly, we see no reason why the
Decision’s construction would exclude the alternative
embodiments in which the abutment is located within the
primary opening or between the primary and secondary
openings. In either of those alternative embodiments, it would
remain the case that the free end is unsupported [when] the
abutment is in the open position.
Paper 15, 5.

IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

9
In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner contends that the
construction of “free end” in the Decision to Institute is inconsistent with the
explanation quoted above from our Decision on Patent Owner’s Request for
Rehearing. See PO Resp. 10. We disagree. As Petitioner succinctly and
correctly observes, the construction “merely states that the free end is
unsupported in the open position, but may or may not be supported in the
closed position. There is nothing inconsistent.” Reply 14.
Patent Owner also argues that the construction we adopted in the
Decision to Institute is erroneous because “it has been tied to the notion,
nowhere contained in the claims or disclosure of the ’118 patent, that the
movable abutment ‘may provide some support to the free end 20 when
abutment 52 is in the closed position.’” PO Resp. 12. We addressed this
same argument in the Decision on Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing:
Figures 2–4 depict movable abutment 52 as being in contact
with the free end of elongate member 20 when abutment 52 is
in the closed position. Ex. 1001, Figs. 2–4. In addition, the
Specification describes that “rotation of the rotatable element
34 drives the proximal portion of the length of hair 26 to rotate
around the elongate member 20 until it engages the abutment
52 (FIGS. 2, 3).” Id. at col. 5, ll. 48–50. Absent contact
between abutment 52 and the free end, abutment 52 would not
engage the length of hair 26 as described in the Specification
because the hair would simply pass between abutment 52 and
the free end of the elongate member 20 and continue to rotate
around the elongate member 20, driven by rotatable element 34.
Accordingly, when abutment 52 is in the closed position,
abutment 52 may provide some structural support to the free
end due to the contact between abutment 52 and the free end of
the elongate member 20.
Paper 15, 4.

IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

10
Patent Owner does not address these points in its Patent Owner
Response. At the hearing, however, Patent Owner explained that in Figure
4, it appears that abutment 52 fits into a cavity in elongate member 20 when
abutment 52 is in the closed position. See Tr. 38:23–39:11, 41:14–42:3; see
also Ex. 2001 ¶ 16 (testimony of Dr. Nosenchuck that “[t]he cavity [in the
elongate member] does not necessarily provide any mechanical support to
the movable abutment”). Figure 4 is reproduced below:

Figure 4 is a perspective view of the hair styling device from below.
Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 39–40.
Aside from Figure 4, nothing in the Specification indicates that the
end of movable abutment 52 is inserted into a cavity in elongate member 20
when abutment 52 is in the closed position. See Tr. 41:17–42:3. Patent
Owner also agrees that a skilled artisan would not be able to discern from
Figure 4 that there is no contact between abutment 52 and elongate member
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

11
20. See id. at 42:4–9, 43:12–16. Thus, neither Patent Owner nor Patent
Owner’s declarant take the position that a skilled artisan would understand
from Figure 4 that when movable abutment 52 is in the closed position, it is
not in contact with elongate member 20, only that there might not be contact.
See id. at 39:14–15, 42:4–9, 43:12–16; Ex. 2001 ¶ 16.
In our view, a skilled artisan would understand from Figure 4 that
there is likely to be contact between abutment 52 and elongate member 20
because a close fit between abutment 52 and elongate member 20 would
tend to promote the ability of abutment 52 to engage hair 26 as it rotates
around elongate member 20 and prevent the proximal portion of hair 26
from rotating around the free end of elongate member 20. See Ex. 1001, col.
5, ll. 48–50, col. 7, l. 65–col. 8, l. 2. This understanding is further supported
by the Specification’s description of an alternative embodiment in which
panel 56 carries a projection overlying the secondary opening:
[T]he projection would have to be a very close sliding fit over
the free end of the elongate member 20 in order to prevent any
length of hair passing therebetween; any hair which did pass
around the free end of the elongate member 20 would become
twisted rather than curled, and would be liable to entanglement.
Id. at col. 8, ll. 62–67.
Patent Owner further argues that our construction improperly reads
limitations into the claim from a preferred embodiment in the specification.
PO Resp. 11. We disagree with this characterization of our construction
because it does not narrow the claim’s scope by inserting features from a
preferred embodiment into the claim language. Rather, we declined to adopt
Patent Owner’s overly narrow construction that would exclude the preferred
embodiment, and instead adopted a construction that is at least broad enough
to include the preferred embodiment.
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

12
Patent Owner has not presented any persuasive reason why we should
depart from the construction of “free end” that we adopted in the Decision to
Institute. For its part, Petitioner states that it is “willing to accept the
Board’s construction” and is “not challenging the construction for the
purposes of this hearing.” Tr. 18:24–25, 27:7–12. This rather tepid
endorsement suggests that Petitioner does not embrace our construction with
open arms, but Petitioner’s qualms do not convince us of any error in the
construction. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that even in the open position,
as shown in Figure 2, the abutment appears to remain in contact with the free
end of the elongate member. Id. at 18:10–18. Petitioner refers to column 6,
lines 9–10 as showing that this figure depicts the device in the open position.
Id. at 19:7–19. However, this portion of the Specification is discussing the
open and closed positions of the handle, not the movable abutment. Ex.
1001, col. 6, ll. 5–15; Tr. 19:20–20:7. The Specification later indicates that
Figures 2 and 3 both show abutment 52 in the closed position. Ex. 1001,
col. 6, ll. 32–33. Further, we are not convinced that the open position of the
handle necessarily signifies that the abutment is also in an open position.
We note that dependent claim 8 requires that “the movable abutment is
driven to its closed position as the second handle part is moved towards the
first handle part.” The recitation of this feature in a dependent claim
suggests that this feature is not necessarily present in all contemplated
embodiments. See 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 4 (requiring that a dependent claim
shall “specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed”). Because
Petitioner does not convince us that the Specification indicates that the
abutment may remain in contact with the elongate member when the
abutment is in the open position, Petitioner’s comments do not apprise us of
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

13
error in our construction.
For the foregoing reasons, in addition to the reasons stated in our
Decision to Institute, we maintain our construction of “free end” to mean “an
end of the elongate member that is unsupported when the movable abutment
is in the open position.”
3. “the length of hair can pass through the secondary opening”
Claim 1 recites that “the chamber [has] a secondary opening through
which the length of hair may pass out of the chamber” and further recites
that “the movable abutment [has] an open position in which the length of
hair can pass through the secondary opening.” In the claim construction
section of its Response, Patent Owner does not propose a construction for
these phrases. See PO Resp. 9–12. However, in the course of its arguments
that Gnaga and Hoshino do not anticipate claim 1, Patent Owner argues that
these phrases should be understood to mean that when the abutment is in its
open position, the styled length of hair is allowed to slide along the elongate
member towards and subsequently off its free end. PO Resp. 29, 45–46
(citing Ex. 1001, 6:33–37; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 27, 37).
Patent Owner’s claim construction argument is based on the following
disclosure in the Specification: “It is arranged that the abutment 52 in its
open position allows the styled length of hair to pass out of the secondary
opening 50, i.e. to slide along the elongate member 20 towards and
subsequently off its free end.” Ex. 1001, 6:33–37. Patent Owner and its
declarant, Dr. Nosenchuck, emphasize that “i.e.” means “that is” or “that is
to say.” PO Resp. 28–29 (citing Ex. 2004); Ex. 2001 ¶ 27.
Petitioner counters that hair sliding off the end of the elongate
member is not required by claim 1. Reply 22. Petitioner argues that a
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

14
publication that is incorporated by reference into the ’118 patent depicts an
embodiment in which hair does not slide off the end of the elongate member.
Id. (citing Ex. 1028, Fig. 12).
We do not find the disclosure of the incorporated reference
informative as to the meaning of these limitations, because Petitioner does
not explain how the Figure 12 embodiment in that reference includes a
secondary opening through which hair passes. We note that the ’118 patent
distinguishes its invention from that of the incorporated reference on the
basis that it “differs in having a secondary opening adjacent to a free end of
the elongate member.” Ex. 1001, 2:1–7. An embodiment that lacks a
secondary opening through which hair passes out of the chamber is
irrelevant to the question of whether the phrase “the movable abutment
having an open position in which the length of hair can pass through the
secondary opening” requires that hair slides along and off the elongate
member in passing through the secondary opening.
Nevertheless, we agree with Petitioner that the claim phrases quoted
above do not require that hair must slide along and off the elongate member.
The Federal Circuit has repeatedly warned against confining the claims to
embodiments in the specification.5 See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech

5 This issue arises, in part, due to the recitation in claim 1 of a device with
steps of using that device, i.e., “the length of hair is wound by the rotatable
element,” “opening through which the length of hair may pass out of the
chamber,” “an open position in which the length of hair can pass through the
secondary opening,” and “closed position in which the length of hair is
retained within the chamber.” Ex. 1001, col. 9, ll. 35–46. Combining steps
of using an apparatus in an apparatus claim may raise issues of
indefiniteness, which are beyond the scope of our review. See IPXL
Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(claims that combine different statutory classes–apparatus and method of
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

15
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against
reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in
the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent a clear
disclaimer in the specification.”); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (“Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should
only limit the claim based on the specification or prosecution history when
those sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.”).6
In our view, the portion of the Specification on which Patent Owner
relies is a description of the operation of a specific embodiment, rather than
an attempt to narrowly define what it means for a length of hair to pass out
of the secondary opening. Indeed, the sentence two sentences above the
quoted statement in the same paragraph begins, “[i]n this embodiment.” Ex.
1001, 6:27. We do not understand the use of “i.e.” in the quoted statement
to signify that passing out of the secondary opening always must be
accomplished by sliding along and off the elongate member. Rather, it

using the apparatus–are not sufficiently precise); see also In re Otto, 312
F.2d 937, 940 (CCPA 1963) (claims directed to a particular device are not
distinguished over the prior art by a certain procedure for curling hair using
the device and steps in this process including “the recitation involving the
hair being wound around the core” are irrelevant to distinguish a structural
claim over the prior art).
6 Although we apply the broadest reasonable interpretation in this
proceeding, we note that the prohibition against importing limitations from
the specification applies with equal force under a Phillips claim
construction. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en banc); Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1372
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Even when the specification describes only a single
embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be read restrictively unless the
patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using
‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.’”) (quoting
Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

16
simply indicates that this is how the length of hair passes out of the
secondary opening in the embodiment being described.
Accordingly, we conclude that claim 1 does not require that the length
of hair is allowed to slide along the elongate member towards and
subsequently off its free end.
4. Whether the Claimed Device Must Be a “Unitary” Device
In the course of its arguments that Gnaga and Hoshino do not
anticipate claim 1, Patent Owner contends that a skilled artisan would
understand that the claimed device must be a “unitary” device. PO Resp.
20–22, 36–39. Although the Patent Owner Response does not tie this
purported requirement to any particular term or phrase in claim 1, Patent
Owner argued at the hearing that the term “device” in the preamble should
be construed to mean “unitary device.” Tr. 50:4–22.
Patent Owner’s argument is based on description in the Specification
that the device is particularly suited for use by a person styling her own hair
and that hair styling is completed while the hair is within the chamber. See
PO Resp. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 16–37, col. 2, ll. 12–15, 25–28,
31–33, col. 8, ll. 16–19). In view of such description, Dr. Nosenchuck
testifies that “I interpret this as being a device—a single device that is
interconnected with parts that are not meant to be disassembled, and that’s
what I particularly referred to as being unitary.” Ex. 1036, 11:11–15; see
also Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 18, 19 (testifying that “a unitary device does not require
assembly/disassembly of components for its operation by a user”). Patent
Owner contrasts the unitary device of the ’118 patent with the “sequential
curler assembly/insertion/removal/disassembly device” that is described in
Gnaga and Hoshino. PO Resp. 22, 39.
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

17
Even assuming that the preamble constitutes a limitation on claim 1, a
point that Petitioner disputes (see Tr. 62:5–7), we disagree with Patent
Owner’s contention that the claim requires a device that is “unitary.”
Rather, we agree with Petitioner that this is another instance in which Patent
Owner attempts to import limitations from the preferred embodiment into
the claim. See Reply 19–20. Patent Owner does not identify any aspect of
the language of claim 1 that precludes removal of parts during operation.
With respect to the portions of the Specification on which Patent Owner
relies, we are not persuaded that these or any other portions of the
Specification serve to disclaim non-unitary devices or limit the scope of a
device to only unitary devices. Cf. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325 (holding that,
despite discussion in the “Objects of the Invention” of a hairbrush for
brushing scalp hair, “in examining the term ‘hair brush,’ the Board correctly
declined to import from the specification a limitation that would apply the
term only to hairbrushes for the scalp”).
While these points are sufficient by themselves, in our view, to
establish that the claim does not require the device to be “unitary,” further
support for that conclusion is provided by a publication that is incorporated
by reference into the ’118 patent. Exhibit 1028 is an international patent
publication titled “A Hair Styling Aid” that lists as its inventor one of the
named inventors of the ’118 patent. See Ex. 1028, (54), (72); Ex. 1001, (75).
Regarding the publication in Exhibit 1028, the ’118 patent states that “[t]he
present invention shares many of the features of the preferred embodiments
of the hair styling device described [therein], and so the disclosure of that
document is incorporated herein in order to avoid unnecessary repetition.”
Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 36–39.
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

18
Petitioner argues, and we agree, that Exhibit 1028 describes that parts
of the device, such as the motor, handle, and rotatable element, can be
separate or removable from the rest of the device. See Reply 21 (citing Ex.
1028, 4, 16, claim 45). This disclosure of detachable parts undermines
Patent Owner’s argument that a skilled artisan would understand the claimed
device as one in which parts are not removed in use.
Patent Owner challenges the relevance of Exhibit 1028 to the issue of
whether the claimed device is unitary. Sur-Reply 3–4. Patent Owner argues
that “incorporation by reference does not convert the invention of the
incorporated patent into the invention of the host patent.” Sur-Reply 4
(citing X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 757 F.3d 1358,
1363 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 75 F.3d
1545, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). But this argument does not persuasively rebut
Petitioner’s point, which is amply supported by the authorities it cites, that
documents incorporated by reference are highly relevant to claim
construction. See Reply 3 (citing AquaTex Indus. v. Techniche Sols., 419
F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Vederi, LLC v. Google, Inc., 744 F.3d
1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Patent Owner also argues that “the ’118
patent distinguishes the invention of Ex. 1028 from that of the ’118 patent.”
Sur-Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 18–20, 36–39, 46–49, col. 2, ll. 1–7).
Patent Owner is correct that the ’118 patent states that the invention differs
from the device described in Exhibit 1028 “in having a secondary opening
adjacent to a free end of the elongate member.” Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 1–5.
But the fact that the ’118 patent describes a distinction from the device of
Exhibit 1028 does not make the incorporated disclosure of Exhibit 1028
irrelevant for all purposes. Specifically, Patent Owner does not explain why
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

19
the absence of a secondary opening in Exhibit 1028 makes the description in
the incorporated Exhibit 1028 of devices with separable parts—that is, non-
unitary devices—irrelevant to whether a “device” must be unitary.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that claim 1 does not require
a “unitary” device, as Patent Owner proposes.
B. Principles of Law
To prevail in its challenges to the patentability of the claims, a
petitioner must establish facts supporting its challenges by a preponderance
of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). “A claim is
anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found,
either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”
Verdegaal Bros. Inc., v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but identity of
terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the
document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of
the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited
in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the
thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
We analyze the instituted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with the
above-stated principles.
C. Weight Given to Experts’ Testimony
We note that each party argues that the testimony of the other party’s
expert should be given little or no weight. See PO Resp. 7–8; Reply 7–10.
As is reflected in our discussion below, this is not a case where the analysis
hinges on the credibility or persuasiveness of one expert’s testimony over
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

20
the other’s. The technology of the ’118 patent and the cited references is
relatively simple and easy to understand. Cf. Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616
F.3d 1231, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[E]xpert testimony is not required when
the references and the invention are easily understandable.”); see also
Belden v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1079 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“No rule
requires a Petition to be accompanied by any declaration, let alone one from
an expert guiding the Board as to how it should read prior art.”).
Moreover, much of the content in the experts’ declarations appears to
be repetition of arguments presented in the parties’ briefing. Compare Pet.
7–13, with Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30(a)–(s); compare Pet. 17–24, with Ex. 1002 ¶
31(a)–(r); compare PO Resp. 17–19, with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 21–22; compare PO
Resp. 24–27, with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 24–26; compare PO Resp. 30, with Ex. 2001
¶ 28. Expert declarations that merely repeat what has already been presented
in a brief add little to the Board’s analysis.
Nevertheless, we have considered the parties’ criticisms of the
arguments and given the testimony of Dr. Nosenchuck and Mr. Prehodka the
appropriate weight in making our determination in this case.
D. Anticipation by Gnaga
Petitioner argues that claims 1–5 and 11 of the ’118 patent are
anticipated by Gnaga. See Pet. 7–16. Patent Owner contests Petitioner’s
position. See PO Resp. 16–33. We have considered the arguments and
evidence presented by both parties, and we determine that Petitioner has
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–5 and 11 are
anticipated by Gnaga.
1. Summary of Gnaga
Gnaga describes a motor-curler unit for automatic application of
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

21
curlers to hair. Ex. 1004, Abstract. Figures 1 and 2 of Gnaga are
reproduced below:

Figure 1 is a side view of internal element B and external element C,
which together form Gnaga’s curler A. Id. at col. 2, ll. 31–33, 44–48.
Figure 2 is a side view of curler A with elements B, C in engagement with
one another. Id. at col. 2, ll. 34–36. Figures 6 and 7 of Gnaga are
reproduced below:

Figures 6 and 7 show side and front views, respectively, of the unit
with curler A inserted inside housing D. Id. at col. 2, ll. 42–43, col. 3, ll.
34–37. Internal element B is locked in position via rod 22 and hook 58, and
external element C is engaged with shaft 28. Id. at col. 3, l. 56–col. 4, l. 8.
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

22
With this arrangement, rotation of shaft 28 drives the rotation of external
element C, while internal element B is held stationary due to the engagement
of rod 22 and hook 58. Id. at col. 4, ll. 13–26.
Thus, when a hair lock is brought into housing D via slot 54, rotation
of element C causes the hair lock to be inserted into hollow space 17
between elements B and C, and wound around element B. Id. at col. 4, ll. 9–
22. When the motor is stopped, the operator releases the connection of hook
58 and rod 22. Id. at col. 4, ll. 23–28. The hair lock can then be removed
from casing D with “curler A, around which the hair lock is still wound,
rest[ing] in position when coming out from the dome-shaped casing D.” Id.
at col. 4, ll. 28–32. After the hair is dried, curler A is disassembled to its
two pieces B, C, and the curled hair lock is released. Id. at col. 4, ll. 32–35.
2. Claim 1
Petitioner has explained how each element of claim 1 is disclosed in
Gnaga. Specifically, Petitioner contends that Gnaga’s rotating element C
and housing D form a body defining a chamber, as recited in claim 1, and
that slot 54 is a primary opening through which a length of hair passes into
the chamber. See Pet. 10, 14. Petitioner further asserts that the opening at
the front of Gnaga’s housing D constitutes the claimed secondary opening.
Id. at 10. Petitioner points to Gnaga’s external element C as the “rotatable
element” and Gnaga’s internal element B as the “elongate member.” Id. at
11. Petitioner contends that the end of internal element B nearest the front
of the device constitutes a “free end.” See id. at 10. Petitioner relies on
Gnaga’s rod 22 as the “movable abutment.” Id. at 12. Petitioner asserts that
rod 22 has an open position in which curler A can pass through the opening
at the front of outside housing D, as well as a closed position in which rod
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

23
22 and hook 58 lock curler A inside the housing D. Id. at 7, 8, 12.
Petitioner points out that rod 22 is located at the opening of housing D,
which corresponds to the claimed secondary opening. Id. at 10, 12. The
evidence supports Petitioner’s contentions, and we agree with Petitioner that
Gnaga teaches every element of claim 1.
We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary, but we
do not find them persuasive. First, Patent Owner argues that “it is implicit
that the claimed hair styling device is a unitary device,” whereas Gnaga’s
device is disassembled during its ordinary operation. PO Resp. 20–22. As
discussed in Section II.A.4. above, we do not agree with Patent Owner that
claim 1 requires a “unitary” device. Therefore, this argument is not
persuasive.
Next, Patent Owner argues that “Gnaga lacks (1) an elongate member
having a free end, (2) a secondary opening adjacent to the free end, and (3) a
movable abutment having an open position in which the length of hair can
pass through the secondary opening, all present at the same time in a hair
styling device.” PO Resp. 23–27. According to Patent Owner, when rod 22
is in the open position and hair curler A is removed from housing D, the
“secondary opening” is no longer adjacent to the “free end” of internal
element B. PO Resp. 24–25. Conversely, when rod 22 is in the closed
position, Gnaga lacks a movable abutment with a free end. PO Resp. 26.
We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that the device described
in Gnaga lacks the three identified features. Looking at Gnaga’s device
when rod 22 is in its open position, Patent Owner only considers the
condition when rod 22 is open and curler A has been entirely removed from
housing D. See PO Resp. 24–25. But when rod 22 is released to its open
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

24
position and before curler A is removed from housing D, all three identified
features are present. See Ex. 1004, col. 4, ll. 25–31. Specifically, internal
element B is an elongate member. See id. at Fig. 1. When the operator turns
lever 58 clockwise around pin 56, thereby releasing rod 22, rod 22 is no
longer in contact with housing D. See id. at col. 4, ll. 25–28. Hence, the end
of elongate member B near the front of the device is a “free end” under our
construction of that term because it is unsupported when rod 22 is in this
open position. See supra Section II.A.2. The free end is also adjacent the
opening at the front of housing D, which Petitioner has identified as the
“secondary opening.” See Pet. 10; Ex. 1004, Fig. 6. And when rod 22 is in
this position, the length of hair can pass through the opening at the front of
housing D, because Gnaga describes that curler A comes out from housing D
with the hair lock still wound around it. See Ex. 1004, col. 4, ll. 28–32.
Patent Owner further argues that in Gnaga, hair does not slide along
the elongate member and off its free end. PO Resp. 27–30. This argument
is based on Patent Owner’s contention that claim 1 should be understood to
require that when the movable abutment is in the open position, the styled
length of hair is allowed to slide along the elongate member and
subsequently off its free end. See id. at 25. As discussed in Section II.A.3.
above, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s proposed construction.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Finally, Patent Owner argues that the claimed structure requires the
“elongate member” and “movable abutment” to be separate structures, but
Petitioner relies on Gnaga’s element B to satisfy both of those limitations.
PO Resp. 30–32. To the extent Patent Owner is arguing that Petitioner’s
case improperly relies on the same, single structure in Gnaga to satisfy these
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

25
two different claim elements, Patent Owner misunderstands Petitioner’s
case. As summarized above, Petitioner points to rod 22 as the “movable
abutment,” and internal element B as the “elongate member.” See Pet. 11–
12. Thus, Petitioner does not rely on the same structure to satisfy both
limitations of an elongate member and a movable abutment. We recognize
that Gnaga indicates that rod 22 is permanently attached to external base 14
of internal element B. See Ex. 1004, Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 57–61 (describing that
“a tangential rod 22 is derived” from rim 20 of base 14). To the extent
Patent Owner is arguing that the “movable abutment” cannot be permanently
joined to the “elongate member,” Patent Owner does not identify, and we do
not find, any language in the claim that precludes such an arrangement. See
Tr. 49:7–50:5.
Accordingly, based on the full record before us, we conclude that
Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1
is anticipated by Gnaga.
3. Claims 2–5 and 11
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation that “the
secondary opening is annular and surrounds the free end of the elongate
member.” Petitioner argues, and we agree, that in Gnaga, the opening at the
front of housing D is annular and it surrounds the end of internal element B
near the front of the device. See Pet. 12; Ex. 1004, Figs. 6, 7. Patent Owner
argues that annular means in the form of a ring, which is continuous, in
contrast to the opening in Gnaga, which “is spanned and made discontinuous
by the rod 22 of the curler element B.” PO Resp. 32. We are not persuaded
that the presence of rod 22 prevents the opening at the front of Gnaga’s
housing D from being annular. As Petitioner correctly notes, in the
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

26
preferred embodiment of the ’118 patent, when movable abutment 52 is in
its closed position, it also spans and makes discontinuous the secondary
opening. Reply 24–25; Ex. 1001, Fig. 3. In this preferred embodiment of
the ’118 patent, just as in Gnaga, the secondary opening is annular, and the
movable abutment occupies one portion of the annular secondary opening
when the movable abutment is in its closed position.
Dependent claim 3 recites that “the movable abutment is located
within the secondary opening.” Petitioner argues, and we agree, that Gnaga
shows rod 22 located within the opening at the front of outside housing D.
See Pet. 12; Ex. 1004, Figs. 3, 6. Patent Owner argues that “[w]hen the
Gnaga device is assembled into the complete motor-curler unit as shown in
Fig. 7 of such reference, such hypothesized movable abutment of Gnaga is
not in an open position in which the length of hair can pass through the
secondary opening.” PO Resp. 33. This argument amounts to a criticism
that when Gnaga’s rod 22 is in the closed position, it does not have the
characteristics required for when it is in an open position. Figures 6 and 7
show Gnaga when rod 22 is in its closed position. In that position, rod 22 is
located within the opening that Petitioner has identified as the secondary
opening, as required by claim 3. Gnaga’s device also has the characteristics
that are required when rod 22 is in the open position, as discussed more fully
above with respect to claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims 4, 5, and 11, Petitioner explains how
the subject matter of these claims is disclosed by Gnaga. See Pet. 12–16.
Patent Owner does not rebut Petitioner’s arguments and evidence against
these claims, other than to note that these claims depend from claim 1. See
PO Resp. 33; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) (providing, with respect to
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

27
oppositions, that “[a]ny material fact not specifically denied may be
considered admitted”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.120(a) (“A patent owner response is
filed as an opposition.”). Upon reviewing the unchallenged contentions and
supporting evidence in the Petition, we are persuaded that Petitioner presents
sufficient evidence to support a finding that Gnaga anticipates these
dependent claims.
Therefore, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that dependent claims 2–5 and 11 are
anticipated by Gnaga.
E. Anticipation by Hoshino
Petitioner argues that claims 1–5 and 11 of the ’118 patent are
anticipated by Hoshino. See Pet. 16–26. Patent Owner contests Petitioner’s
position. See PO Resp. 16–33. We have considered the arguments and
evidence presented by both parties, and we determine that Petitioner has
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–5 and 11 are
anticipated by Hoshino.
1. Summary of Hoshino
Figure 1 of Hoshino is reproduced below:
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

28

Figure 1 is an oblique view of the automatic hair curler. See Ex.
1006, 6. As shown in Figure 1, Hoshino describes an automatic hair curler
in which curling member 9, made up of fixed roller 7 and rotating pressing
piece 8, is mounted on shaft 3. See Ex. 1005, Figs. 1, 2; Ex. 1006, 3. Fixed
roller 7 is held in place by the position of hair guide arm 16 between latching
groove 23 on protective tube body 6 and lock groove 24 on lock lever 25,
while rotating pressing piece 8 is driven to rotate by shaft 3. Ex. 1006, 4.
Hair H is introduced into hair introduction groove 22 and is wound onto
fixed roller 7 by rotating pressing piece 8. Id. at 5. When curling is
completed, lock lever 25 is rotated and curling member 9 is removed from
shaft 3. Id. at 5. Curling member 9 can be left on the head and, when ready,
curling member 9 is removed from the curled hair by detaching fixed roller 7
and rotating pressing piece 8. Id. at 5.
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

29
2. Analysis of Claims 1–5 and 11
We observe that the structure and operation of Hoshino is very similar
to that of Gnaga, at least as it pertains to the issues in this case. Cf. Tr.
48:24–48:1 (Patent Owner’s counsel noting that “the similitude between
those two prior art structures is rather amazing”). It is unsurprising, then,
that the parties’ arguments concerning Hoshino are very similar to those
presented for Gnaga. Compare PO Resp. 19–33 (arguments against Gnaga),
with id. at 36–50 (arguments against Hoshino); see also Reply 19–25
(addressing Patent Owner’s arguments against Gnaga and Hoshino together).
Consequently, the explanation below of our analysis of Hoshino is
abbreviated to avoid extended repetition.
With respect to claim 1, Petitioner contends that Hoshino’s rotating
pressing piece 8 and protective tube body 6 form a body defining a chamber.
See Pet. 20. Petitioner asserts that hair introduction groove 22 constitutes a
primary opening through which a length of hair passes into the chamber, and
that the opening at the front of Hoshino’s protective tube body 6 constitutes
the claimed secondary opening. See id. at 20–21. Petitioner points to
Hoshino’s rotating pressing piece 8 as the “rotatable element” and Hoshino’s
fixed roller 7 as the “elongate member.” See id. at 21. Petitioner contends
that the end of fixed roller 7 nearest the front of the device constitutes a “free
end.” Id. Petitioner relies on Hoshino’s hair guide arm 16 as the “movable
abutment.” Id. at 22. Petitioner asserts that hair guide arm 16 has an open
position in which curler A can pass through the opening at the front of
protective tube body 6, and a closed position in which the hair is retained
inside protective tube body 6. Id. at 20–22.
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

30
The evidence supports Petitioner’s contentions, and we agree with
Petitioner that Hoshino teaches every element of claim 1. Patent Owner’s
arguments in opposition to Petitioner’s case are not persuasive. Patent
Owner’s argument that Hoshino’s device is not a “unitary” device (PO Resp.
36–39) is not persuasive because we do not agree that claim 1 requires a
unitary device. See supra Section II.A.4. Patent Owner’s argument that in
Hoshino’s device, hair does not slide along and off the elongate member (PO
Resp. 41–42, 44–47) is not persuasive because we do not agree that allowing
hair to slide along the elongate member and subsequently off its free end is a
requirement of claim 1. See supra Section II.A.3.
Patent Owner’s argument that “Hoshino lacks (1) an elongate member
having a free end, (2) a secondary opening adjacent to the free end, and (3) a
movable abutment having an open position in which the length of hair can
pass through the secondary opening, all present at the same time in a hair
styling device” (PO Resp. 40) is unpersuasive for substantially similar
reasons as discussed above with respect to Gnaga. Namely, when Hoshino’s
hair guide arm 16 is moved to its open position and before fixed roller 7 is
taken off of shaft 3, all three of the identified features are present. Fixed
roller 7 is an elongate member. See Ex. 1006, Fig. 2. When “lock lever 25
is rotated and the lock of the hair guide arm 16 released,” hair guide arm 16
is no longer in contact with protective tube body 6. See id. at 5. Hence, the
end of fixed roller 7 near the front of the device is a “free end” under our
construction of that term because it is unsupported when hair guide arm 16 is
in this open position. See supra Section II.A.2. The free end is also adjacent
the opening at the front of protective tube body 6, which Petitioner has
identified as the “secondary opening.” See Pet. 21–22; Ex. 1006, Fig. 1.
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

31
And when hair guide arm 16 is in this position, the length of hair can pass
through the opening at the front of protective tube body 6, because Hoshino
explains that curling member 9, which includes fixed roller 7 and rotating
pressing piece 8, is removed from housing D with the hair still wound inside
it. See Ex. 1006, 3, 5.
Finally, Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner improperly relies on
a single element in Hoshino to satisfy both the “elongate member” and
“movable abutment” limitations (PO Resp. 47–48) is unpersuasive because
Petitioner relies on hair guide arm 16 as the “movable abutment” and fixed
roller 7 as the “elongate member.” Pet. 21–22.
Turning to the dependent claims, Petitioner argues, and we agree, that
Hoshino shows a secondary opening at the front of protective tube body 6
that is annular and surrounds the free end of fixed roller 7, as required by
claim 2. Pet. 21, 22–23. Patent Owner’s argument that the secondary
opening in Hoshino is not annular due to the presence of hair guide arm 16
(PO Resp. 49) is unpersuasive because that understanding of what an
“annular” opening requires would exclude the preferred embodiment of the
’118 patent. See supra Section II.C.3. We also agree with Petitioner that
Hoshino discloses the subject matter of claim 3, because Hoshino shows hair
guide arm 16 located within the opening at the front of protective tube body
6. See Pet. 23; Ex. 1006, Fig. 1. With respect to dependent claims 4, 5, and
11, Petitioner explains how the subject matter of these claims is disclosed by
Hoshino. See Pet. 23–26. Patent Owner does not rebut Petitioner’s
arguments and evidence against these claims, other than to note that these
claims depend from claim 1. See PO Resp. 50; 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.23(a),
42.120(a). Upon reviewing the unchallenged contentions and supporting
IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

32
evidence in the Petition, we are persuaded that Petitioner presents sufficient
evidence to support a finding that Hoshino anticipates these dependent
claims.
Therefore, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–5 and 11 are anticipated by
Hoshino.
III. CONCLUSION
We conclude Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence
that claims 1–5 and 11 are anticipated by Gnaga. We further conclude that
Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–5 and
11 are anticipated by Hoshino.
IV. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that claims 1–5 and 11 of the ’118 patent are held
unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
parties to this proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2015-00649
Patent 8,651,118 B2

33
PETITIONER:

Laura M. Floyd
Jeffrey G. Sheldon
LEECH TISHMAN FUSCALDO & LAMPL
llloyd@leechtishman.com
jsheldon@leechtishman.com

PATENT OWNER:

Steven Hultquist
Mary Grant
HULTQUIST IP
hultquist@hultquistip.com
mgrant@hultquistip.com