Wildcat Licensing WI LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 1, 2021

IPR2020-00892 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 56
571-272-7822 Date: November 1, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

ATLAS COPCO TOOLS AND ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS LLC,
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, FAURECIA AUTOMOTIVE SEATING, LLC,
and MAGNA INTERNATIONAL INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
WILDCAT LICENSING WI LLC,
Patent Owner.

IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E

Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, HYUN J. JUNG, and JAMES A. TARTAL,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT
Final Written Decision
Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Strike
Granting Patent Owner’s Motion to Maintain Exhibits
Dismissing Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
35 U.S.C. § 318(a)

IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
2
I. INTRODUCTION
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
For the reasons that follow, we determine that Atlas Copco Tools and
Assembly Systems LLC, General Motors LLC, Faurecia Automotive
Seating, LLC, and Magna International Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) have
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 26–49 of U.S. Patent
No. RE47,232 E (Ex. 1001, “the ’232 patent”) are unpatentable. We also
deny Petitioner’s Motion to Strike Patent Owner’s Sur-reply Evidence,
dismiss as moot Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude, and grant Patent Owner’s
Motion to Maintain Exhibits 2068–2078.
A. Background and Summary
Petitioner filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting institution of an
inter partes review of claims 26–49 of the ’232 patent. Wildcat Licensing
WI LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 9). Pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted an inter partes review of the ’232 patent.
Paper 11 (“Inst. Dec.”). In particular, we instituted review of claims 26–49
on all presented challenges. Inst. Dec. 2, 23, 31.
After institution, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 31, “PO
Resp.”), to which Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 39, “Pet. Reply”), and
Patent Owner thereafter filed a Sur-reply (Paper 40, “PO Sur-reply”).
Petitioner filed a Motion to Strike Patent Owner’s Sur-reply Evidence
(Paper 46, “Mot. to Strike”), and Patent Owner filed an Opposition to the
Motion to Strike and in the alternative, a Motion to Maintain Exhibits 2068–
2078 in the Record Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5 (Paper 47, “Opp. to Mot. to
Strike”), to which Petitioner filed a Reply in Support of Motion to Strike
Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply Evidence (Paper 48, “Reply for Mot. to Strike”).
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
3
Petitioner also filed a Motion to Exclude Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
(Paper 49, “Mot. to Excl.”), and Patent Owner filed an Opposition to the
Motion to Exclude (Paper 50, “Opp. to Mot. to Excl.”). Petitioner
subsequently filed a Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude Pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 42.64(c). Paper 51 (“Reply for Mot. to Excl.”). An oral hearing in
this proceeding was held on August 3, 2021; a transcript of the hearing is
included in the record. Paper 54.
B. Real Parties in Interest
Petitioner lists several entities as real parties in interest. Pet. 80–81;
Paper 27, 3–4; Paper 32, 3–4. Petitioner also states that there are numerous
related entities not believed to be real parties in interest, but “[t]o avoid any
potential dispute and to show good faith, all Atlas Copco entities, Faurecia
entities, General Motors entities, JRL entities, and Magna entities
nonetheless agree to be estopped under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315 to
the same extent that Petitioners are estopped.” Pet. 80–82; Paper 27, 5;
Paper 32, 5. Petitioner further identifies all defendants in related litigation
as possible real parties in interest “[o]ut of an abundance of caution given
the fact intensive nature of [real party in interest] assessments.” Pet. 82;
Paper 27, 5–6; Paper 32, 5–6.
Patent Owner states that “[t]he real party-in-interest is Wildcat
Licensing WI LLC.” Paper 8, 1.
C. Related Matters
The parties identify nine co-pending suits in Delaware where, at least,
the ’232 patent has been asserted. Pet. 78–80; Paper 8, 1–2; Paper 27, 2–3;
Paper 32, 2–3.
The application that issued as the ’232 patent was the subject of Ex
parte Walt II and Walt, Appeal No. 2018-003428 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2018).
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
4
Ex. 1032. Also, the ’232 patent reissued from U.S. Patent No. 6,763,573
that was challenged in Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Wildcat Licensing WI LLC,
IPR2014-00304 (“304-IPR”). The Final Written Decision from the 304-IPR
is filed as Exhibit 1023. The parties also identify IPR2020-00891
concerning U.S. Patent No. RE47,220 E as a related matter. Pet. 78;
Paper 8, 2; Paper 27, 2; Paper 32, 2.
D. The ’232 Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’232 patent “particularly relates to monitoring fastening of
articles of assemblies in such assembly systems.” Ex. 1001, 1:24–25.
According to the ’232 patent, “[t]here are many industries where the
sequence of fastening operations and/or the applied torque of fastening
operations are critical in assembling an article of assembly,” such as “the
automotive seat assembly industry.” Id. at 1:29–33.
The ’232 patent “is directed towards a new more reliable method for
assembling an article of assembly . . . having multiple fastening locations in
spaced apart relation” and “comprises . . . providing at least two different
types of targets fixed relative to the article of assembly that correspond to
the individual fastening locations.” Ex. 1001, 2:63–3:2. “When fastening is
occurring at one of the fastening locations, one of the targets is being
sensed” and “an electronic target output is generated that differentiates
between the different types of targets thereby indicating fastening location of
the fastening tool.” Id. at 3:4–9. Figure 1 of the ’232 patent is reproduced
below.
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
5

Figure 1 “is an isometric and partly schematic view of a seat assembly
station.” Ex. 1001, 3:41–42. Assembly station 10 is for assembling
automotive seat 12 on conveyor 14. Id. at 3:66–4:2, 4:8–10. Assembly
station 10 includes a fastening tool, such as screw driver 30, for driving bolts
into frame 13 of seat 12. Id. at 4:41–45. Screw driver 30 includes integral
torque monitor 31 that provides an indication of the torque applied to a
fastener. Id. at 4:48–51.
There are also a plurality of targets 50a–50c and machine vision
camera 54 that senses targets 50a–50c and communicates an electronic
output to processor or electronic controller 58. Ex. 1001, 5:10–15, 5:56–58.
Electronic controller 58 is connected to screw driver 30 to activate driver 30
when it is in proper fastening position and disabling driver 30 when it is not.
Id. at 6:26–30. Electronic controller 58 also receives an indication from
torque monitor 31 of the torque applied at the fastening location. Id. at
6:30–33.
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
6
E. Illustrative Claim
The ’232 patent includes claims 26–49, all of which Petitioner
challenges. Claim 26, reproduced below, is the only independent claim.
An assembly system for assembling components of an
article of assembly, comprising:
first and second physically separate components that,
when assembled together, form at least a portion of the article of
assembly, wherein
(a) a single set of discrete portions of the first and
second components, when placed together, form at least a single
process site consisting of a plurality of fastening locations within
the single process site including at least first and second fastening
locations,
(b) each of the first and second fastening locations
consists of a single opening for receiving a single fastener that,
when fastened in the single opening, partially assembles the first
and second components together, and
(c) wherein the article of assembly is structurally
designed so that the first and second fastening locations are
positioned within the single process site is spaced apart relation
to each other such that a fastener must be inserted in the first
fastening location before a fastener is inserted in the second
fastening location to reduce the risk of structural failure of the
assembled combination of the first and second components that
would arise if a fastener were inserted in the second fastening
location before a fastener were inserted in the first fastening
location;
a fixture holding the first and second components of the
article of assembly in a predetermined position in which the first
and second components are placed together to form the single
process site;
a fastening tool adapted to fasten fasteners into the single
process site formed by the first and second components of the
article of assembly, the fastening tool having a first position
relative to the fixture in which the fastening tool is in position to
fasten a fastener at the first fastening location, and a second
position relative to the fixture in which the fastening tool is in
position to fasten a fastener at the second fastening location;
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
7
at least one sensor providing a sensor output indicating
when the fastening tool is at the first and second fastening
locations;
an electronic controller in communication with the at least
one sensor, the electronic controller monitoring the location of
the fastening tool to ensure proper fastening of fasteners at the
fastening locations and having stored in a memory thereof before
an operator has commenced manual fastening using the fastening
tool
(a) data representative of the location of the first
fastening location within the single process site together with
first order data indicating that a fastener must be inserted in the
first fastening location at a point in time before a fastener is
inserted in the second fastening location, and
(b) data representative of the location of the second
fastening location within the single process site together with
second order data indicating that a fastener must be inserted in
the second fastening location at a point in time after a fastener
has been inserted in the first fastening location,
wherein the location data and the first and second
order data for the first and second fastening locations form a
predetermined fastening sequence for the single process site that
must be followed in order for the first and second components to
be assembled together in a manner that reduces the risk of
structural failure of the assembled combination that would arise
if a fastener were inserted in the second fastening location before
a fastener were inserted in the first fastening location;
wherein the fastening tool comprises a fastening monitor
indicating a fastening operation,
wherein the electronic controller has a predetermined
sequence program that, when executed, requires the operator’s
use of the fastening tool to conform to the predetermined
sequence of fastening among the first and second fastening
locations by the electronic controller
(a) monitoring the sequence of fastening based
upon the sensor output,
(b) electronically comparing the sensed position of
the fastening tool with the data representative of the location of
the first and second fastening locations within the single process
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
8
site to determine if the fastening tool is located in operative
relation to one of the first and second fastening locations and then
(c) using the order data associated with the one of
the first and second fastening locations to
(i) enable the fastening tool, when it is
positioned in operative relation to the first fastening location, to
insert a fastener in the first fastening location only if the operator
has not inserted a fastener in the second fastening location, and
(ii) enable the fastening tool, when it is
positioned in operative relation to the second fastening location,
only if the operator already has inserted a fastener in the first
fastening location,
wherein requiring that the operator’s use of the
fastening tool conform to the predetermined sequence of
fastening in the single process site reduces the risk of structural
failure of the assembled combination that would arise if a
fastener were inserted in the second fastening location before a
fastener were inserted in the first fastening location;
the electronic controller providing a sequence output
indicating whether the predetermined fastening sequence has
been achieved each time that the operator attempts to fasten a
fastener in one of the first and second fastening locations;
wherein the electronic controller also has stored in its
memory first and second predetermined torque values that
represent torque values that the operator is supposed to apply to
fasteners inserted in the first and second fastening locations only
when the operator’s use of the fastening tool conforms to the
predetermined sequence of fastening; and
wherein the execution of the predetermined sequence
program by the electronic controller requires the predetermined
sequence of fastening to be followed in the single process site
and also
(a) uses the fastening monitor to measure torque
applied to a fastener as it is being inserted in the first fastening
location and then compares the measured torque to the first
predetermined torque value,
(b) requires that the torque applied to the fastener
located in the first fastening location equal the first
predetermined torque value before the operator is allowed to
insert a fastener in the second fastening location, which reduces
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
9
the risk of structural failure of the assembled combination that
would result if the operator were allowed to insert a fastener in
the second fastening location when the torque applied to the first
fastener does not equal the first predetermined torque value;
(c) uses the fastening monitor to measure torque
applied to a fastener as it is being inserted in the second
fastening location and then compares the measured torque to
the second predetermined torque value, and
(d) requires that the torque applied to the fastener
located in the second fastening location equal the second
predetermined torque value after the first fastener has been
inserted in the first fastening location at the first predetermined
torque value, which reduces the risk of structural failure of the
assembled combination that would result if the operator were
allowed to complete assembly of the first and second
components when the torque applied to the fastener inserted in
the second fastening location did not equal the second
predetermined torque value.
Ex. 1001, 16:38–18:57 (emphases added).
F. Asserted Prior Art and Proffered Testimonial Evidence
Petitioner identifies the following references as prior art in the
asserted grounds of unpatentability:
Name Reference Exhibit No(s).
Stimpson US 5,415,418, issued May 16, 1995 1006
Fredrick US 5,547,259, issued Aug. 20, 1996 1007
Becker US 5,890,405, issued Apr. 6, 1999 1009
Gass WO 00/17719, published Mar. 30, 2000 1004, 1005
IBM Three Dimensional Tooling Position
Sensing, IBM Technical Disclosure
Bulletin, vol. 36, no. 12, December 1993,
pp. 81–82
1003
Sabatini Seat Time, Automotive Manufacturing &
Production, January 2000
1008
All references to Gass in this Decision are to the certified translation
filed as Exhibit 1005. Petitioner also provides a Declaration of Gregory W.
Davis, Ph.D., P.E. (Ex. 1002), and Patent Owner provides a Declaration of
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
10
Mark Lehnert (Ex. 2035). Deposition transcripts for Dr. Davis and Mr.
Lehnert were also filed. Ex. 1039; Ex. 2060.
G. Asserted Grounds
Petitioner asserts that claims 26–49 are unpatentable on the following
grounds:
Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
26, 39, 41, 46–48 103(a)1 IBM, Stimpson
26, 39, 41, 46–48 103(a) IBM, Stimpson, Becker
26–33, 36–41, 46–49 103(a) IBM, Stimpson, Sabatini, Gass
26–33, 36–41, 46–49 103(a) IBM, Stimpson, Becker, Sabatini, Gass
26, 34, 35, 39, 41–43, 46–
48 103(a) IBM, Fredrick
26, 34, 35, 39, 41–43, 46–
48 103(a) IBM, Fredrick, Becker
26–49 103(a) IBM, Fredrick, Sabatini, Gass
26–49 103(a) IBM, Fredrick, Becker, Sabatini, Gass
26–33, 36–41, 46–49 103(a) Gass, Stimpson, Sabatini
26–33, 36–41, 46–49 103(a) Gass, Stimpson, Sabatini, Becker
26–49 103(a) Gass, Fredrick, Sabatini
26–49 103(a) Gass, Fredrick, Sabatini, Becker

II. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standards
In an inter partes review, Petitioner bears the burden of proving
unpatentability of the challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never

1 The relevant sections of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), took effect on March 16,
2013. Because the ’232 patent claims priority to an application filed before
that date, our citations to Title 35 are to its pre-AIA version.
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
11
shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail in its challenges,
Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.
35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d).
The U.S. Supreme Court set forth the framework for applying the
statutory language of 35 U.S.C. § 103 in Graham v. John Deere Co. of
Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966):
Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be
determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at
issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the
pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the
obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is
determined. Such secondary considerations as commercial
success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc.,
might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding
the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented.
As explained by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex
Inc.:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated
teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to
the design community or present in the marketplace; and the
background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary
skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an
apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
claimed by the patent at issue. To facilitate review, this
analysis should be made explicit.
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.”)).
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
12
“Whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to
modify the teachings of a reference is a question of fact.” WBIP, LLC v.
Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[W]here a party argues
a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine references, it must
show the artisan ‘would have had a reasonable expectation of success from
doing so.’” Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc., 876
F.3d 1350, 1360–61 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Cyclobenzaprine
Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063,
1068–69 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
As described below, the parties’ disputes are related to the scope and
content of the asserted prior art, differences between claim 26 and the
asserted prior art, and objective indicia of nonobviousness.
After reviewing the complete record, we conclude that Petitioner has
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that IBM, Fredrick, Sabatini, and
Gass teach or suggest the limitations of claims 26–49; that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine these references
with a reasonable expectation of success; and that nexus has not been
demonstrated sufficiently for the asserted objective indicia of
nonobviousness.
B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Petitioner asserts the same level of ordinary skill that was applied in
the 304-IPR. Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1023, 20). In particular, Petitioner
contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had
a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering or a
related field, and at least two (2) years of professional or practical
experience in the industry, or comparable combination of
education and experience, such as Electrical Engineering,
Industrial Engineering, Manufacturing Engineering, and at least
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
13
two (2) years of professional or practical experience in the
industry, or comparable combination of education and
experience, such as ten years of practical experience in industry.
Id.
Patent Owner states that it “does not materially dispute Petitioners’
definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 23 (citing
Pet. 20–21). In our Decision granting institution, we preliminarily adopted
Petitioner’s unopposed proposal. Inst. Dec. 11.
In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Based on the full record before us, we see no reason to disturb our
preliminary finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have had
a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering or a
related field, and at least two (2) years of professional or practical
experience in the industry, or comparable combination of
education and experience, such as Electrical Engineering,
Industrial Engineering, Manufacturing Engineering, and at least
two (2) years of professional or practical experience in the
industry, or comparable combination of education and
experience, such as ten years of practical experience in industry.
Pet. 20–21; Inst. Dec. 11. This level of skill in the art is consistent with the
disclosure of the ’232 patent and the prior art of record.
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
14
C. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review based on a petition filed on or after
November 13, 2018, the claims are construed
using the same claim construction standard that would be used to
construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b),
including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary
and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to
the patent.
37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Additionally, only terms that are in
controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the
extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only
those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent
necessary to resolve the controversy”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan
Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing
Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).
Petitioner proposes an interpretation of “insert” and disputes Patent
Owner’s interpretation of “insert” from related litigation. Pet. 21–22.
Petitioner also argues that “the Board need not resolve this dispute here
because claims 26–49 are obvious under either construction.” Id. at 22. We
also note that, in its challenges based on IBM, Petitioner provides arguments
regarding “[sequence] output.” Id. at 33–34 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 106–107,
Ex. 1014, 233; Ex. 1015, 13–18; Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 25–26, 34). In our Decision
granting institution, we did not need to interpret expressly any term at that
stage of the proceeding. Inst. Dec. 12. Patent Owner states that “[n]o terms
need be construed for the Board to reject Grounds A–F.” PO Resp. 22; see
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
15
also id. (indicating in a table that Grounds A–F include all the grounds listed
above in Section I.G).
Petitioner’s proposed combinations that include Becker are contingent
on adopting Petitioner’s interpretation of “insert.” See Pet. 36–39, 56, 72.
We agree with the parties that we do not need to interpret this or any term to
resolve the parties’ disputes. Pet. 22; PO Resp. 22.
Therefore, in view of the full record before us, we determine that no
claim term requires express construction. Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.
D. Scope and Content of the Asserted Prior Art
1. IBM (Ex. 1003)
IBM comes from a “Technical Disclosure Bulletin” and is titled
“Three Dimensional Tooling Position Sensing.” Ex. 1003, ii, 81.2 The only
figure of IBM is reproduced below.

2 Like Petitioner, we cite to the page numbers of IBM, not to its exhibit page
numbers.
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
16
The figure shows a “screw torque sequence verification system.”
Ex. 1003, 82. IBM describes “[a]n example application for a screw torque
sequence verification system” where “[t]he problem is to ensure that four
screws 5 fixing two product parts 3 & 4 together are tightened to a specific
torque in a specific sequence.” Id.
“An electric torque driver 11 and commercial ‘pull-wire’ position
transducer 1 are both linked to a microcontroller circuit 6.” Ex. 1003, 82.
“The controller circuit 6 needs to be able to enable/disable the power to the
torque driver 6 by use of a simple relay or FET to sense when correct torque
is achieved by linking into a hall effect sensor in the driver 11.” Id. “[T]he
controller may be programmed” so that “[f]urther positions become invalid
if screw torque on the previous position is not achieved.” Id.
2. Gass (Ex. 1005)
Gass “relates to a process system and a process tool for processing a
workpiece, more particularly in the field of automotive assembly.” Ex. 1005
¶ 1. This system, which ensures that an operator actually undertakes
processing at programmed process sites on the workpiece, has
a recognizing means . . . which identifies the location, i.e. the
position of the process tool in the process station, the location,
i.e. position of the workpiece in the process station and therefrom
it is able to determine the location of the process tool relative to
the process site in each case. Once the location of the process tool
and the location of the workpiece ha[ve] been recognized then –
since the process sites on the workpiece are always programmed
(for example in a memory) – the system is always able to keep
track of whether the process tool has been guided to the correct
process site, also in the correct sequence, where several process
sites are concerned, so that here . . . the system is able to assign
the process tool not, for example, to each zone, as in the prior art,
but to the process site itself. In other words, recognizing the
process site is implemented implicitly via locationing.
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
17
Id. ¶ 15.
Further defining the system, Gass refers to Figure 6, set forth below.

Figure 6 depicts that workpiece 5 is arranged in predefined process
station 1, where processing at a plurality of process sites 4, 4’ takes place
with programmed process parameters by process tools 7, 7’. Ex. 1005 ¶ 64.
As Gass explains,
[a] recognizing means 200 is provided to identify the location
and/or angular orientation of the process tool 7, 7’ in the process
station 1, the location of workpiece 7 in the process station 1 and
to recognize therefrom the location of the process tool 7 relative
to each process site 4.
Id.
With reference to Figure 5 (not reproduced), Gass further describes
the system as follows.
Once a programmed location of the workpiece (and/or a specific
process site on the workpiece) relative to the tool has been
recognized, the recognizing means 200 outputs the identification
signal ES to the process parameter programming means 8 which
. . . reads the corresponding design values from the memory 9 for
outputting to each process tool 7, 7’ and to the comparator means
10. During processing, the comparator means 10 compares the
actual values to the design values and controls the process tool 7
. . . .
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
18
Id. When the actual and design values agree, comparator means 10 stops
process tool 7, “so that in processing[,] the actual parameter is brought into
agreement with the design parameter.” Id. ¶¶ 23, 43. Gass states that
process tool 7 may be a screw driver or a nut runner, and the programmed
process parameters may be bolting parameters, such as torque or a torsion
angle of the screw driver or nut runner. Id. ¶ 90; see also id. ¶ 23 (stating
process tool may be a screw driver or nut runner).
3. Fredrick (Ex. 1007)
Fredrick “relates to seat frames for automobiles.” Ex. 1007, 1:6–7.
Figure 1 of Fredrick is reproduced below.

Figure 1 “is a perspective view of the modular seat frame” of
Fredrick. Ex. 1007, 2:35–36, 2:62–65. “The seat frame 10 is mounted on a
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
19
conventional seat track 120 having a conventional adjuster assembly 122,
and includes a lower seat assembly 12, a recliner assembly 14, a seat back
frame 16, and a headrest assembly 18.” Id. at 2:65–3:2. “The recliner
assembly 14 includes upper and lower mounting brackets 14a and 14b that
are secured to the lower seat assembly 12 and seat back frame 16,
respectively, by conventional means, such as bolts and/or welding.” Id. at
3:9–12.
4. Sabatini (Ex. 1008)
Sabatini is an article titled “Seat Time.” Ex. 1008, 54.3 It describes
a Johnson Controls facility for assembling seats for vehicles, such as the
Lincoln LS. Id. “The LS seat line is actually two lines: one that builds the
simple rear seats and another that builds the more complicated front seats,”
and the seats “are assembled entirely of subassembled components-tracks,
foam cushions, back frames, leather covers, airbags, wiring harnesses, etc.”
Id. at 55, 56.
“Operators work in ‘cells,’ which are combinations of the 16 or so
discrete steps in assembly,” and “[e]ach cell has a measured takt time, which
ensures that the line can run at an optimal speed.” Ex. 1008, 55. “[A]s
demand increases, more operators will be added” so as to “adapt production
levels to Ford’s demand.” Id.; see also id. (“Operators will be moved from
Port St.’s other seat line (Ford Expedition/ Lincoln Navigator seats) as
demand fluctuates, adapting faster and cheaper than robots or other
automation could.”). Id. “As more operators are added, work assignments
in each cell are changed to reduce takt times.” Id.

3 Like Petitioner, we cite to the page numbers of Sabatini, not to its exhibit
page numbers.
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
20
Also, according to Sabatini, “[o]perators use torque-sensing guns with
visual indicators,” and “[i]f fasteners are not run to the correct torque setting,
a light above the line comes on and the line shuts down until an operator
corrects the problem.” Ex. 1008, 55. “Likewise, the continuity of the
electrical system in the seat is tested as it moves on the conveyor by
plugging a machine into the wiring harness.” Id.
E. Obviousness Based on IBM, Fredrick, Sabatini, and Gass
With citations to the references and declarant testimony, Petitioner
contends that claims 26, 39, 41, and 46–48 are unpatentable over IBM,
Stimpson, and optionally Becker (Pet. 23–42); claims 26–33, 36–41, and
46–49 are unpatentable over IBM, Stimpson, Sabatini, Gass, and optionally
Becker (id. at 42–50); claims 26, 34, 35, 39, 41–43, and 46–48 are
unpatentable over IBM, Frederick, and optionally Becker (id. at 50–59); and
claims 26–49 are unpatentable over IBM, Fredrick, Sabatini, Gass, and
optionally Becker (id. at 60–65).
Patent Owner responds that, for the obviousness challenges based on
combinations with IBM, IBM fails to teach limitations related to storing
predetermined torque values, measuring applied torque, comparing applied
torque with predetermined torque values, and requiring the applied torque to
equal a predetermined torque value before moving to a second fastening
location. PO Resp. 2–5, 41–50. Patent Owner also responds that IBM fails
to teach an electronic controller requiring an operator to use a fastening tool
in a specific order. Id. at 5–7, 60.
Because Petitioner’s challenge based on the proposed combination of
IBM, Fredrick, Sabatini, and Gass addresses all of the challenged claims, we
analyze that challenge in particular. For the reasons below, a preponderance
of the evidence persuades us that IBM, Fredrick, Sabatini, and Gass teach or
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
21
suggest the limitations of claims 26–49 and that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have combined these references in the manner asserted by
Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success.
1. Analysis of Claim 26
a) An assembly system for assembling components of an article of
assembly, comprising: first and second physically separate
components that, when assembled together, form at least a
portion of the article of assembly, wherein (a) a single set of
discrete portions of the first and second components, when
placed together, form at least a single process site consisting
of a plurality of fastening locations within the single process
site including at least first and second fastening locations, (b)
each of the first and second fastening locations consists of a
single opening for receiving a single fastener that, when
fastened in the single opening, partially assembles the first and
second components together, and (c) wherein the article of
assembly is structurally designed so that the first and second
fastening locations are positioned within the single process site
is spaced apart relation to each other
Petitioner shows, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that IBM
teaches that “two product parts 3 & 4 would be placed in position on a
suitable locating fixture 10 on a work bench 8” (Ex. 1003, 82) and that
Fredrick teaches that seat frame 10 “includes a lower seat assembly 12, a
recliner assembly 14, a seat back frame 16, and a headrest assembly”
(Ex. 1007, 2:67–3:2) and that “recliner assembly 14 includes upper and
lower mounting brackets 14a and 14b that are secured to the lower seat
assembly 12 and seat back frame 16, respectively, by conventional means,
such as bolts.” Pet. 4–5 (referring to these limitations of “26(1)”), 25 (citing
Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 84–86; Ex. 1003, 81–82), 50–51 (citing Ex. 1007, 2:65–3:12,
Fig. 1), 54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168, 175–176, 178), 60; Ex. 1003, 81–82;
Ex. 1007, 2:65–3:12, Fig. 1; see also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 84–86, 168, 175–176, 178
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
22
(we credit Dr. Davis’s testimony regarding this limitation because he shows
how IBM and Fredrick support his opinion).
Because IBM teaches a system for ensuring screws 5 fix together two
parts 3, 4 on locating fixture 10 and Fredrick teaches mounting bracket 14b
is physically separate from lower seat assembly 12 and assembled to form a
seat frame, and they also form a single process site with three spaced apart
fastening locations that are openings that each receive a bolt, Petitioner
persuades us that IBM and Fredrick teach the above quoted limitations of
claim 26.
b) such that a fastener must be inserted in the first fastening
location before a fastener is inserted in the second fastening
location to reduce the risk of structural failure of the
assembled combination of the first and second components that
would arise if a fastener were inserted in the second fastening
location before a fastener were inserted in the first fastening
location;
Petitioner shows, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that Fredrick
teaches that “recliner assembly 14 includes upper and lower mounting
brackets 14a and 14b that are secured to the lower seat assembly 12 . . . by
conventional means, such as bolts” and shows three bolts fastening
bracket 14b to lower seat assembly 12. Pet. 5 (referring to these limitations
of “26(2)”), 55–56 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 173, 178; Ex. 1014, 102–103; Ex.
1015, 30–31), 60; Ex. 1007, 3:9–12, Fig. 1; see also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 173, 178
(we credit Dr. Davis’s testimony regarding this limitation because he shows
how Fredrick supports his opinion).
Because Fredrick teaches at least two bolts securing lower mounting
bracket 14b to lower seat assembly 12, Petitioner persuades us that Fredrick
teaches the above quoted limitations of claim 26. As discussed below,
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
23
Petitioner proposes applying IBM to Fredrick’s seat to reduce the risk of
structural failure. See Pet. 50–54, 60–62.
c) a fixture holding the first and second components of the article
of assembly in a predetermined position in which the first and
second components are placed together to form the single
process site;
Petitioner shows, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that IBM
teaches that “two product parts 3 & 4 would be placed in position on a
suitable locating fixture 10 on a work bench 8.” Pet. 5 (referring to these
limitations of “26(3)”), 27–28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 92–95; Ex. 1003, 81–82),
54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168, 175–176, 178), 60, 62 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 194–
195); Ex. 1003, 81–82; see also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168, 175–176, 178 (we credit
Dr. Davis’s testimony regarding this limitation because he shows how IBM
and Fredrick support his opinion).
Because IBM teaches parts 3, 4 on locating fixture 10, Petitioner
persuades us that IBM teaches the above quoted limitations of claim 26.
d) a fastening tool adapted to fasten fasteners into the single
process site formed by the first and second components of the
article of assembly, the fastening tool having a first position
relative to the fixture in which the fastening tool is in position
to fasten a fastener at the first fastening location, and a second
position relative to the fixture in which the fastening tool is in
position to fasten a fastener at the second fastening location;
Petitioner shows, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that IBM
teaches electric torque driver 11 and that “an operator is compelled and
guided into applying the driver to the screws in a particular sequence, and he
must also wait for the set torque to be achieved on each screw before
moving onto the next screw.” Pet. 5 (referring to these limitations of
“26(4)”), 28–29 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 98; Ex. 1003, 81–82), 54 (citing Ex. 1002
¶¶ 168, 175–176, 178), 60; Ex. 1003, 81–82; see also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168, 175–
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
24
176, 178 (we credit Dr. Davis’s testimony regarding this limitation because
he shows how IBM and Fredrick support his opinion).
Because IBM teaches electric torque driver 11 for fastening screws
into parts 3, 4, Petitioner persuades us that IBM teaches the above quoted
limitations of claim 26.
e) at least one sensor providing a sensor output indicating when
the fastening tool is at the first and second fastening locations;
Petitioner shows, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that IBM
teaches that “transducer 1 is required to be off-centre so that when the screw
driver 12 is offered up to the screws the extension of the pull-wire 2 is
sufficiently different for each screw position,” that “controller circuit 6
needs to be able to enable/disable the power to the torque driver 6 . . . and
finally measure the extension of the transducer cable 2,” that “[i]f the
transducer wire 2 is attached to the top of the driver then the screws must be
a reasonable distance apart or tilting of the driver may cause incorrect
positions to be measured,” and that IBM shows a “POSITIONAL” output.
Pet. 4–5 (referring to these limitations of “26(5)”), 29 (citing Ex. 1002
¶¶ 102–103; Ex. 1003, 81–82), 54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168, 175–176, 178),
60, 62 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 194–195).
Because IBM teaches a pull-wire attached to its driver that provides a
“POSITIONAL” output and allows controller circuit 6 to enable or disable
power based, at least, on the extension of the pull-wire, Petitioner persuades
us that IBM teaches the above quoted limitations of claim 26.
f) an electronic controller in communication with the at least one
sensor, the electronic controller monitoring the location of the
fastening tool to ensure proper fastening of fasteners at the
fastening locations and having stored in a memory thereof
before an operator has commenced manual fastening using the
fastening tool (a) data representative of the location of the first
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
25
fastening location within the single process site together with
first order data indicating that a fastener must be inserted in
the first fastening location at a point in time before a fastener
is inserted in the second fastening location, and (b) data
representative of the location of the second fastening location
within the single process site together with second order data
indicating that a fastener must be inserted in the second
fastening location at a point in time after a fastener has been
inserted in the first fastening location, wherein the location
data and the first and second order data for the first and
second fastening locations form a predetermined fastening
sequence for the single process site . . . wherein the electronic
controller has a predetermined sequence program that, when
executed, requires the operator’s use of the fastening tool to
conform to the predetermined sequence of fastening among the
first and second fastening locations by the electronic controller
(a) monitoring the sequence of fastening based upon the sensor
output, (b) electronically comparing the sensed position of the
fastening tool with the data representative of the location of
the first and second fastening locations within the single
process site to determine if the fastening tool is located in
operative relation to one of the first and second fastening
locations and then (c) using the order data associated with the
one of the first and second fastening locations to (i) enable the
fastening tool, when it is positioned in operative relation to the
first fastening location, to insert a fastener in the first fastening
location only if the operator has not inserted a fastener in the
second fastening location, and (ii) enable the fastening tool,
when it is positioned in operative relation to the second
fastening location, only if the operator already has inserted a
fastener in the first fastening location, . . . the electronic
controller providing a sequence output indicating whether the
predetermined fastening sequence has been achieved each time
that the operator attempts to fasten a fastener in one of the first
and second fastening locations;
For the limitations starting with “an electronic controller,” Petitioner
contends that IBM teaches the limitations. Pet. 6–7 (referring to these
limitations as “26(6)”), 30–31 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 99–101; Ex. 1003, 81–82),
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
26
54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168, 175, 176, 178). For the limitations starting with
“wherein the electronic controller has a predetermined sequence program,”
Petitioner argues that IBM teaches the limitations. Id. at 7–8 (referring to
these limitations as “26(9)”), 31–32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 104; Ex. 1003, 82),
54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168, 175, 176, 178), 55–56 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 173,
178; Ex. 1014, 102–103; Ex. 1015, 30–31). For the limitations starting with
“the electronic controller providing a sequence output,” Petitioner argues
that IBM teaches the limitations. Id. at 8 (referring to these limitations as
“26(11)”), 32–34 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 105–107; Ex. 1003, 82; Ex. 1014, 233;
Ex. 1015, 13–18; Ex. 1023, 16–17; Ex. 1028 ¶ 34; Ex. 1032, 3), 54 (citing
Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168, 175, 176, 178).
(1) Patent Owner’s Response
Patent Owner refers to the limitations above as the Claimed Sequence
Requirements. PO Resp. 5–6 (quoting from Ex. 1001, 17:14–32, 17:45–
18:2, 18:10–14). Patent Owner responds that IBM does not teach or suggest
forcing a “predetermined fastening sequence,” “using the order data,” or
“providing a sequence output . . . each time that the operator attempts to
fasten a fastener.” Id. at 6. Patent Owner also responds that Fredrick,
Sabatini, and Gass do not remedy the asserted deficiencies. Id.; see also id.
at 3 (arguing that ordinary skilled artisans “would have known that
‘sequence’ in IBM refers to operators fastening screws consecutively one
after another in any order without ‘rehitting’ an already-fastened screw”).
In support, Patent Owner argues that IBM “monitor[s] the position of
a clutch-controlled tool on a pull-wire and count[s] fastenings based on
clutch disengagement at programmed extension dimensions of the pull-wire
to ensure all screws were applied” to “prohibit[] ‘rehits’ of the same
screws.” PO Resp. 41–42 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 148). Patent Owner also
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
27
argues that “[i]f the clutch disengaged at a programmed extension
dimension, the system would count that hole as fastened and not enable the
tool there again.” Id. (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 148).
Patent Owner contends that “IBM says nothing about programming
the controller to force operators to achieve one dimension of the pull-wire
before any other dimension or that an operator must start fastening at any
specific programmed dimension.” PO Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 1003, 82;
Ex. 2035 ¶ 149). Patent Owner also contends that IBM’s use of “particular
sequence” and “sequence” would have been understood to “mean fastening
one screw after another consecutively to prohibit rehitting the same screw
and ensure that no hole is missed.” Id. (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 149). Patent
Owner further contends that IBM was meant for assembling computer
components and designed to count screws. Id. (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 149).
Patent Owner argues that IBM sends only “POSITIONAL” and
“TORQUE” data and has a “CNTR” for counting clutch disengagements.
PO Resp. 43 (citing Ex. 1003, 81). Patent Owner also argues that IBM uses
“sequence of operations” and “sequence of use,” not sequence of fastening,
so ordinary skilled artisans would not have understood that IBM was
implementing a fastening order. Id. (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 150). Patent Owner
further argues that Dr. Davis does not testify to the contrary, never saw the
IBM apparatus, did not know if a prototype was built, and first saw IBM for
this proceeding. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 99–101, 104; Ex. 2060, 77:4–6,
78:5–21, 79:11–14, 80:1–7, 82:3–6, 84:15–85:12, 86:2–6, 131:15–133:2).
Specific to the Claimed Sequence Requirements, Patent Owner
responds, by referring to arguments about comparing measured torque and
predetermined torque, that “IBM does not force a fastening order” and that
the “IBM apparatus assigned each screw hole a distance that the pull-wire
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
28
had to be extended to force operators to perform sequential (one after
another) fastening to prohibit ‘rehits’ of the same screw.” PO Resp. 60.
According to Patent Owner, “IBM contains no disclosure requiring operators
to fasten one hole first and before any other hole.” Id.
(2) Petitioner’s Reply
For the Claimed Sequence Requirements, Petitioner replies that Patent
Owner relies on an apparatus that is irrelevant, and IBM expressly teaches
“correct process sequence” and preventing “incorrect sequences.”
Pet. Reply 19 (citing PO Resp. 41–43, 58–60; Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 2060,
93:9–94:10, 120:14–122:6, 131:3–133:15). Petitioner also replies that IBM
teaches a controller that learns a “sequence” and “sequence required.” Id.
(citing Ex. 1003, 82). Petitioner argues that the ’232 patent provides
minimal details about its forced-sequence fastening. Id. at 19–20 (citing
Ex. 1001, 7:60–8:3). Petitioner further replies that IBM’s “CNTR SIGS”
refers to “control signals” and IBM does not merely count without enforcing
a sequence, as argued by Patent Owner. Id. at 20 (citing PO Resp. 28;
Ex. 2047, 1).
(3) Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
For the Claimed Sequence Requirements, Patent Owner replies that
IBM’s tool would not be disabled if there was a fastening order. PO Sur-
reply 22. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s reply arguments
“present nothing new” and only attorney arguments about “sequence,” as
used in IBM, that fails to rebut Mr. Lehnert’s testimony that the term
indicates using IBM’s tool to fasten consecutively so that no fastener is
missed. Id. (citing Pet. Reply 19–20; Ex. 1003, 81–82). According to
Patent Owner, IBM says nothing about locations or order and “does not
describe requiring that torque applied at a specific first location equal a
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
29
specific torque before the operator may apply torque at a second specific
location.” Id. at 22–23. Patent Owner contends that IBM merely states
“[f]urther positions become invalid,” and so “operators could go to any other
hole (‘further positions’), not one specific next hole.” Id. at 23 (citing
Ex. 1003, 82). Patent Owner also contends that “IBM does not say that a
sequence is stored in memory” and only pull-wire dimensions are discussed.
Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 82). According to Patent Owner, the “operator decides
the order, but is ‘compelled and guided’ to apply the driver to specific holes
depending on what hole(s) he already fastened.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 82;
Ex. 2035 ¶ 149). Patent Owner also asserts that Petitioner’s reply arguments
about “CNTR” are attorney arguments and contradict both parties’ declarant
testimony. Id. at 23–24 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 121; Ex. 2060, 127:7–128:5,
142:2–15).
(4) Petitioner Shows that IBM Teaches or Suggests the
Claimed Sequence Requirements
For the limitations regarding an “an electronic controller” (limitation
“26(6)”), we find that the relied-upon portions of IBM teaches that “system
positions/sequence may be set dynamically by having a simple ‘Learn’
button which enables the controller to learn the nominal positions, tolerance,
and the sequence required.” Ex. 1003, 82. We also credit Dr. Davis’s
testimony regarding these limitations because IBM supports it. Ex. 1002
¶¶ 99 (citing Ex. 1003, 82), 101.
For the limitations regarding “wherein the electronic controller has a
predetermined sequence program” (limitation “26(9)), we find that the
relied-upon portion of IBM teaches that “[w]ith such a system an operator is
compelled and guided into applying the driver to the screws in a particular
sequence, and he must also wait for the set torque to be achieved on each
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
30
screw before moving onto the next screw.” Ex. 1003, 82. We also credit
Dr. Davis’s testimony regarding these limitations because IBM supports it.
Ex. 1002 ¶ 104 (citing Ex. 1003, 82).
For the limitations regarding “the electronic controller providing a
sequence output” (limitation “26(11)”), we find that the relied-upon portion
of IBM teaches that “controller circuit 6 needs to be able to enable/disable
the power to the torque driver 6 by use of a simple relay or FET to sense
when correct torque is achieved by linking into a hall effect sensor in the
driver 11,” “[p]ower is not applied to the driver 11 until comparison of
measured and stored correct dimensions show it to be in the correct
position,” and “[f]urther positions become invalid if screw torque on the
previous position is not achieved.” Ex. 1003, 82. We also credit Dr. Davis’s
testimony regarding these limitations because IBM supports it. Ex. 1002
¶ 105 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82).
In view of the above and the parties’ dispute regarding these
limitations, we find that the relied-upon portion of IBM explicitly describes
“a screw torque sequence verification system,” that addresses the “problem”
of “ensur[ing] screws 5 . . . are tightened to a specific torque in a specific
sequence” and that compels “an operator . . . into applying the driver to the
screws in a particular sequence.” Ex. 1003, 82. IBM’s system also “enables
the controller to learn . . . the sequence required.” Id. Based on our findings
above, Petitioner shows that IBM enforces a predetermined sequence. We
also credit Dr. Davis’s testimony regarding these limitations because record
evidence supports it. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 99–101 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82), 104
(citing Ex. 1003, 82); Ex. 2060, 93:9–94:10, 120:14–122:6, 131:3–133:15.
Also, as discussed above, the relied-upon portion of IBM teaches that
“controller circuit 6 needs to be able to enable/disable the power to the
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
31
torque driver 6 by use of a simple relay or FET to sense when correct torque
is achieved by linking into a hall effect sensor in the driver 11,” “[f]urther
positions become invalid if screw torque on the previous position is not
achieved,” and that “an operator is compelled . . . into applying the driver to
the screws in a particular sequence, and he must also wait for the set torque
to be achieved on each screw before moving onto the next screw.”
Ex. 1003, 81–82. The portions of IBM also persuade us that IBM enforces a
predetermined sequence.
Further, as discussed below, Petitioner persuades us that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have applied IBM’s “screw torque sequence
verification system” to Fredrick’s vehicle to “reduc[e] the risk of structural
failure that would occur if Fredrick’s bolts were fastened in the wrong order
or to the wrong torque.” Pet. 51.
Patent Owner offers another interpretation of IBM that is used to
avoid “rehits” by tracking pull dimensions of driver 11 as it tightens screws
5. See PO Resp. 3, 41–43 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 148–150), 60; PO Sur-reply
22–24. In view of our factual findings above and cited evidence, we credit
Dr. Davis’s testimony over Mr. Lehnert’s testimony because IBM better
supports Dr. Davis’s testimony. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 99–101, 104, 105, 178;
Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 148–150 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82).
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner persuades us that IBM and
Fredrick teach the above quoted limitations of claim 26. Patent Owner also
provides the bases for these arguments in its responsive arguments for the
later recited “Claimed Torque Requirements,” which we analyze below. See
PO Resp. 2–5, 41–50.
g) that must be followed in order for the first and second
components to be assembled together in a manner that reduces
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
32
the risk of structural failure of the assembled combination that
would arise if a fastener were inserted in the second fastening
location before a fastener were inserted in the first fastening
location;
Petitioner shows, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that Fredrick
teaches that “recliner assembly 14 includes upper and lower mounting
brackets 14a and 14b that are secured to the lower seat assembly 12 . . . by
conventional means, such as bolts” and shows three bolts fastening
bracket 14b to lower seat assembly 12. Pet. 7 (referring to these limitations
of “26(7)”), 55–56 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 173, 178; Ex. 1014, 102–103;
Ex. 1015, 30–31), 60; Ex. 1007, 3:9–12, Fig. 1; see also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 173,
178 (we credit Dr. Davis’s testimony regarding this limitation because he
shows how Fredrick supports his opinion).
Because Fredrick teaches at least two bolts securing lower mounting
bracket 14b to lower seat assembly 12, Petitioner persuades us that Fredrick
teaches the above quoted limitations of claim 26. As discussed below,
Petitioner proposes combining IBM and Fredrick to reduce the risk of
structural failure. See Pet. 50–54, 60–62.
h) wherein the fastening tool comprises a fastening monitor
indicating a fastening operation,
Petitioner shows, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that IBM
teaches that “controller circuit 6 needs to be able to enable/disable the power
to the torque driver 6 by use of a simple relay or FET to sense when correct
torque is achieved by linking into a hall effect sensor in the driver 11.”
Pet. 7 (referring to these limitations of “26(8)”), 35–36 (citing Ex. 1002
¶¶ 111; Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1023, 10–14; Ex. 1028 ¶ 35), 54 (citing
Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168, 175–176, 178).
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
33
Because IBM teaches torque driver 11 with Hall effect sensor in
driver 11 that allows controller circuit 6 to sense when correct torque is
achieved, Petitioner persuades us that IBM teaches the above quoted
limitations of claim 26.
i) wherein requiring that the operator’s use of the fastening tool
conform to the predetermined sequence of fastening in the
single process site reduces the risk of structural failure of the
assembled combination that would arise if a fastener were
inserted in the second fastening location before a fastener
were inserted in the first fastening location;
Petitioner shows, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that IBM
teaches that “[t]he system positions/sequence may be set dynamically by
having a simple ‘Learn’ button which enables the controller to learn the
nominal positions, tolerance, and the sequence required.” Pet. 8 (referring to
these limitations of “26(10)”), 27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 55–58, 88–91), 54, 60;
Ex. 1003, 82; see also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 178 (we credit Dr. Davis’s testimony
regarding this limitation because he shows how IBM supports his opinion).
Because IBM teaches enabling a controller to learn the sequence
required, Petitioner persuades us that IBM teaches the above quoted
limitations of claim 26. As discussed above in Section II.E.1.f.4., Petitioner
persuades us that IBM teaches the Claimed Sequence Requirements, and as
discussed below, Petitioner proposes applying IBM to Fredrick’s seat to
reduce the risk of structural failure. See Pet. 50–54, 60–62.
j) wherein the electronic controller also has stored in its memory
first and second predetermined torque values that represent
torque values that the operator is supposed to apply to
fasteners inserted in the first and second fastening locations
only when the operator’s use of the fastening tool conforms to
the predetermined sequence of fastening; and wherein the
execution of the predetermined sequence program by the
electronic controller requires the predetermined sequence of
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
34
fastening to be followed in the single process site and also (a)
uses the fastening monitor to measure torque applied to a
fastener as it is being inserted in the first fastening location
and then compares the measured torque to the first
predetermined torque value, (b) requires that the torque
applied to the fastener located in the first fastening location
equal the first predetermined torque value before the operator
is allowed to insert a fastener in the second fastening location,
. . . (c) uses the fastening monitor to measure torque applied to
a fastener as it is being inserted in the second fastening
location and then compares the measured torque to the second
predetermined torque value, and (d) requires that the torque
applied to the fastener located in the second fastening location
equal the second predetermined torque value after the first
fastener has been inserted in the first fastening location at the
first predetermined torque value,
For the limitations starting with “wherein the electronic controller also
has stored in its memory first and second predetermined torque values,”
Petitioner argues that IBM teaches the limitations. Pet. 9 (referring to these
limitations as “26(12)”)), 34 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 108, 110; Ex. 1003, 81–82),
54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168, 174–176, 178; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 20, 49; Ex. 1012,
55:10–56:10; Ex. 1014, 205–206, Ex. 1015, 30–31), 60.
For the limitations starting with “wherein the execution of the
predetermined sequence program by the electronic controller,” Petitioner
argues that IBM teaches the limitations. Pet. 9–10 (referring to these
limitations as “26(13)”)), 35–36 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 111; Ex. 1003, 81–82),
54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168, 175–176, 178). For the limitations starting with
“(c) uses the fastening monitor to measure torque applied to a fastener as it
is being inserted,” Petitioner argues that IBM teaches the limitations. Id. at
10 (referring to these limitations as “26(13) (continued)”), 35–36 (citing
Ex. 1002 ¶ 111; Ex. 1003, 81–82), 54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168, 175–176,
178).
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
35
(1) Patent Owner’s Response
Patent Owner refers to the above limitations as the “Claimed Torque
Requirements.” PO Resp. 2–3 (quoting from Ex. 1001, 18:15–39). Patent
Owner responds that “no cited reference teaches the heart of the invention—
an electronic controller that requires an operator to apply specific
preprogrammed torque values with a fastening tool in a specific predefined
(not operator-defined) order,” as required by these limitations. Id. at 2.
According to Patent Owner, “[t]hese limitations establish that an operator
must start at a first predetermined fastening location and measure, compare
and apply a preprogrammed torque value at that location before being
allowed to move to a next fastening location.” Id. at 3; see also id. at 40
(arguing that the Claimed Torque Requirements enforce similar operator
actions).
Patent Owner argues that IBM and Gass do not teach the Claimed
Torque Requirements because “[n]either one enforces a ‘predetermined
sequence of fastening,’ let alone one that ‘measure[s]’ torque, ‘compares’
measured torque to a ‘stored’ predetermined torque value and ‘requires’ that
a predetermined torque value be reached at a first fastening location before
an operator can go to the next one in a predefined order.” PO Resp. 3; see
also id. at 41 (arguing that “IBM does not teach ‘stor[ing]’ predetermined
torque values and ‘execut[ing]’ a ‘predetermined sequence program’ that
‘measure[d] torque,’ ‘compare[d] the measured torque to [stored]
predetermined torque values’ and ‘require[d]’ that the torque applied to one
fastener equal a stored torque value before the operator can fasten another
fastener”).
In Patent Owner’s view, IBM discloses, and would have been
understood to disclose, “a counting apparatus with a clutch-controlled
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
36
screwdriver.” PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner argues that IBM “executed a
‘counting program’ that allowed the user to start at any hole, did not
measure the torque applied, did not compare torque measurements and did
not require the applied torque to be equal to a torque value retrieved from
memory” and “skilled artisans would have understood IBM as teaching a
counting apparatus – not a system executing a ‘predetermined sequence
program.’” Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 148). Patent Owner also argues that
ordinary skilled artisans would not have understood “IBM as disclosing the
far-advanced concepts of (and components required for) the Claimed Torque
Requirements.” Id. at 3–4.
Specific to the Claimed Torque Requirements, Patent Owner argues
that IBM “monitor[s] the position of a clutch-controlled tool on a pull-wire
and count[s] fastenings based on clutch disengagement at programmed
extension dimensions of the pull-wire to ensure all screws were applied” to
“prohibit[] ‘rehits’ of the same screw.” PO Resp. 41–42 (citing Ex. 2035
¶ 148). Patent Owner also argues that “[i]f the clutch disengaged at a
programmed extension dimension, the system would count that hole as
fastened and not enable the tool there again.” Id. (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 148).
Patent Owner contends that “IBM says nothing about programming
the controller to force operators to achieve one dimension of the pull-wire
before any other dimension or that an operator must start fastening at any
specific programmed dimension.” PO Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 1003, 82;
Ex. 2035 ¶ 149). Patent Owner also contends that IBM’s use of “particular
sequence” and “sequence” would have been understood to “mean fastening
one screw after another consecutively to prohibit rehitting the same screw
and ensure that no hole is missed.” Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 149). Patent
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
37
Owner further contends that IBM was meant for assembling computer
components and designed to count screws. Id. (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 149).
Patent Owner argues that IBM sends only “POSITIONAL” and
“TORQUE” data and has a “CNTR” for counting clutch disengagements.
PO Resp. 43 (citing Ex. 1003, 81). Patent Owner also argues that IBM uses
“sequence of operations” and “sequence of use,” not sequence of fastening,
so ordinary skilled artisans would not have understood that IBM was
implementing a fastening order. Id. (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 149). Patent Owner
further argues that Dr. Davis does not testify to the contrary, never saw the
IBM apparatus, did not know if a prototype was built, and first saw IBM for
this proceeding. Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 99–101, 104; Ex. 2060, 77:4–
6, 78:5–21, 79:11–14, 80:1–7, 82:3–6, 84:15–85:12, 86:2–6, 131:15–133:2).
Patent Owner also responds that “[t]he ‘set torque’ in IBM refers to
the spring force on the clutch,” “[t]he ‘hall effect sensor’ in IBM detects
when that force is exceeded and reports clutch disengagement as a binary
signal to the controller,” and “[t]he controller did not store or force a
preprogrammed fastening order—it stored pull-wire extension dimensions,
which an operator could achieve in any order, and counted clutch
disengagements when an operator extended the pull-wire to match a stored
dimension.” PO Resp. 3.
Specifically, Patent Owner argues that “IBM necessarily discloses a
clutch-controlled tool and simple microcontroller that – whether alone or
together – did not and could not measure and compare torque.” PO
Resp. 44 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 152); see also id. at 25 (arguing that IBM has a
clutch-controlled tool and torque refers to a clutch setting) (citing Ex. 2037
¶¶ 114–117; Ex. 2001; Ex. 2002; Ex. 2003; Ex. 2004). Patent Owner also
argues that Dr. Davis admitted that IBM did not measure and compare. Id.
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
38
at 44 (citing Ex. 2060, 56:1–9, 57:1–2, 57:13–21, 106:4–9, 140:16–19,
145:11–16, 146:21–24, 152:8–21). Patent Owner further argues that
Petitioner’s arguments depend on IBM having a torque transducer tool, but
that contradicts the state of the art at the time. Id. at 44–45 (citing Ex. 2035
¶¶ 152–154; Ex. 2060, 103:25–104:3, 136:6–16, 140:16–19, 145:7–16,
146:6–24, 151:13–21, 152:14–21); see also id. at 8–20 (arguing what the
state of the art was at the time).
Patent Owner asserts that ordinary skilled artisans would have
necessarily understood that IBM’s screw driver with “hall effect sensor”
refers to a Hall effect sensor used to detect clutch disengagement of the
screw driver, not a torque transducer tool as asserted by Petitioner’s
arguments, because such tools were used in low-torque applications and
torque transducer tools were not available until later. PO Resp. 45 (citing
Ex. 2035 ¶ 155). Patent Owner also asserts that Dr. Davis lacks knowledge
and experience with such tools. Id. at 45–46 (citing Ex. 2060, 34:15–35:6,
54:22–55:5, 58:20–59:19, 102:16–18, 103:8–104:7, 163:9–15).
As for IBM’s 8097 microcontroller, Patent Owner asserts that such a
microcontroller did not have the computing power to be used with a torque
transducer tool, was not compatible with a torque transducer tool, and would
not be paired with such a tool by ordinary skilled artisans. PO Resp. 46–47
(citing Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 63–65, 115–117, 156; Ex. 2047); see also id. at 26–27
(arguing that the 8097 microcontroller could not be used with a torque
transducer tool, receives a clutch disengagement signal, and outputs a
counter for dimension matches and clutch disengagements) (citing Ex. 1003,
81–82; Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 115, 118–119). Regarding IBM’s use of “torque,”
Patent Owner asserts that the term was used to describe clutch-controlled
tools, and Dr. Davis is mistaken when he opines that it applied to torque
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
39
transducer tools. Id. at 47 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 158; Ex. 2052; Ex. 2053;
Ex. 2054; Ex. 2055; Ex. 2056; Ex. 205; Ex. 2060, 101:13–20, 103:10–15,
104:21–24, 110:16–21, 136:6–16, 137:1–10, 139:1–7, 150:7–151:21,
153:10–21; Ex. 2066, 5). Patent Owner also asserts that IBM’s only figure
shows a clutch-controlled tool. Id. at 48 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 161; Ex. 2061).
Patent Owner further asserts that Dr. Davis’s testimony is inconsistent with
Mr. Lehnert’s personal observation of the IBM apparatus. Id. (citing
Ex. 2035 ¶ 161; Ex. 2060, 127:2–6).
According to Patent Owner, Petitioner’s arguments fail because IBM
does not disclose comparing sensed torque to set torque, IBM’s
microcontroller could not perform such a comparison, and IBM only
measures pull-wire lengths and compares it to stored dimensions. PO
Resp. 48–49 (citing Pet. 34; Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 115–117, 156,
162). Patent Owner also argues that it would not have been obvious to store
set torque because IBM’s set torque is spring force on the clutch, not a
stored value. Id. at 49 (citing Pet. 34; Ex. 2035 ¶ 163). Patent Owner
further argues that IBM did not force or require any torque because it simply
stopped power to the tool when the clutch disengaged, and Dr. Davis’s
testimony is mistaken. Id. at 49–50 (citing Pet. 35; Ex. 1002 ¶ 111;
Ex. 2035 ¶ 164).
(2) Petitioner’s Reply
Petitioner replies that IBM ensures that “fasteners are tightened ‘to a
specific torque in a specific sequence.’” Pet. Reply 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003,
81–82). Petitioner argues that Patent Owner relies on a different and
irrelevant IBM apparatus that Mr. Lehnert allegedly once saw, differs from
IBM, is not shown to be prior art, and has not been corroborated. Id. at 4–5
(citing Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 73, 74, 76, 77, 149).
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
40
Petitioner also replies that IBM teaches that its Hall effect sensor
senses torque. Pet. Reply 6 (citing Pet. 34–36; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 108–111;
Ex. 1003, 81–82). Petitioner argues that Dr. Davis confirmed that ordinary
skilled artisans would have understood that IBM teaches a Hall effect torque
transducer. Id. at 6–7 (citing Ex. 2060, 104:11–105:9, 110:4–113:8, 136:6–
139:13). Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner relies on an irrelevant
IBM apparatus and provides no evidence showing that “torque” would have
meant a clutch disengagement signal. Id. at 7 (citing PO Resp. 17, 28;
Ex. 1040, 4:46–49; Ex. 1043, 3:58–59; Ex. 2060 136:6–139:13). Petitioner
further argues that IBM’s torque driver is not limited to a low-torque
screwdriver or the example application. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 82; Ex. 2035
¶ 112). Petitioner additionally provides examples of screwdrivers with
torque sensors from the 1990’s to refute Patent Owner’s argument. Id. at 7–
9 (citing PO Resp. 13; Ex. 1005 ¶ 50, Figs. 1b, 3b; Ex. 1040, 4:46–5:35,
Fig. 1; Ex. 1041, 3:2–28, Fig. 3; Ex. 1042, Fig. 3; Ex. 1043, 3:14–68, Fig. 1;
Ex. 1046, 1:31–40, 8:51–9:2).
Petitioner argues that IBM does not limit its torque driver to any
particular brand or type. Pet. Reply 9 (citing PO Resp. 48; Ex. 1003, 82;
Ex. 2060, 118:4–13, 115:4–8). Petitioner also argues that IBM ensures
screws are fastened to “the correct torque” so the Hall effect sensor must
measure torque to meet IBM’s goal. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 82; Ex. 2060,
56:22–57:22, 106:7–10, 140:10–25, 145:7–148:14,), 10 (citing Ex. 2060,
105:10–106:23). According to Petitioner, clutch-controlled tools with
sensors to verify correct torque were known at the time. Id. at 9–10 (citing
Ex. 1039, 32:4–20, 42:2–5; Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 24–26). Petitioner contends that
IBM’s microcontroller facilitated comparing with “sensed data” so the Hall
effect sensor must measure torque. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 108–111;
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
41
Ex. 2060, 105:10–106:23, 139:16–140:25, 147:9–25, 155:2–6, 157:4–
158:12). Petitioner, thus, contends that IBM would have confirmed to a
person of ordinary skill in the art that its Hall effect sensor measures torque.
Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 2060, 141:4–22, 145:1–147:25, 151:7–153:9).
Petitioner also replies that Hall effect torque sensors were well known
at the time of invention. Pet. Reply 11–12 (citing PO Resp. 45–46;
Ex. 1039, 53:16–54:22; Ex. 1044, 3:12–25, 5:11–14, 7:57–59, 8:27–9:31;
Ex. 1045, 3:31–63, 5:52–61; Ex. 1048, 6:53–60, 17:66–67; Ex. 1050,
Abstract, 2:52-57, 4:14–19, 4:47–48; Ex. 1051, 7:30, 8:20; Ex. 1052, 6:65–
66; Ex. 1053, Abstract, 21:34–35; Ex. 2060, 44:1–47:11, 48:19–50:7, 49:17–
53:19, 110:4–113:8, 159:6–160:12). According to Petitioner, Mr. Lehnert
knew of Hall effect torque sensors used with tools before the priority date.
Id. at 12–14 (citing Ex. 1039, 43:14–17, 49:15–51:9, 53:21–54:22; Ex. 1045,
3:34–43; Ex. 1054 § 5.3.1; Ex. 1049, Abstract; Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 33, 37;
Ex. 2060, 49:17–51:3). Petitioner, thus, argues that, because Hall effect
torque sensors were known, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that IBM’s Hall effect sensor senses torque. Id. at 14 (citing
Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 108–111; Ex. 2060, 110:16–113:8).
Petitioner further replies that IBM’s microcontroller uses its Hall
effect sensor to control torque, and that torque controllers with torque
transducer tools were common. Pet. Reply 15 (citing PO Resp. 44–47;
Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 108–111; Ex. 1003, 82; Ex. 1009, 9:42–47; Ex. 1042, claim 1;
Ex. 1043, 3:14–68; Ex. 1040, 4:36–5:35; Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 66, 132, 117, 156).
Petitioner also argues that the ’232 patent does not include details of how it
controls torque. Id. at 15–16 (citing PO Resp. 46–47; Ex. 1039, 133:19–21;
Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 63–65, 115–117, 161; Ex. 2060, 155:17–156:22). Petitioner
further argues that Mr. Lehnert underestimated the computing power of
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
42
IBM’s microcontroller. Id. at 16–17 (citing PO Resp. 46–47; Ex. 1039,
51:13–52:1, 101:10–102:20; Ex. 2035 ¶ 116; Ex. 2047, 1). In Petitioner’s
view, IBM’s microcontroller receives an accurate analog torque signal,
monitors tool position, and could control torque similarly. Id. at 17–19
(citing Pet. 34–36; PO Resp. 33; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 108–111; Ex. 1003, 81–82;
Ex. 1046, 8:51–9:2; Ex. 1054 § 5.3.1; Ex. 2047, 1; Ex. 2060, 100:6–101:22,
137:11–138:25, 144:10–22, 148:15–152:13, 188:3–190:20).
Petitioner additionally argues that IBM describes how to overcome
position sensing errors. Pet. Reply 20–21 (citing PO Resp. 18, 59; Ex. 1002
¶¶ 102, 168, 178). According to Petitioner, Mr. Lehnert conceded that
IBM’s tool can be used on high-torque bolts. Id. at 21–22 (citing PO Resp.
59; Ex. 1039, 64:5–67:5, 71:17–73:15, 139:21–140:7; Ex. 1056, 1:7–12,
2:16–6:16, Fig. 1; Ex. 1057, 1:34–39, 3:54–4:10, Fig. 1). Petitioner argues
that Mr. Lehnert provides no evidence that applying IBM to Fredrick would
require high-torque, that IBM is not limited to low-torque applications, and
that ordinary skilled artisans would have selected an appropriate tool. Id. at
22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 98; Ex. 1003, 82; Ex. 1039, 64:5–70:15, 73:18–74:10;
Ex. 2060, 89:20–90:23, 118:4–13, 115:4–8). Petitioner also argues that
conventional tools controlled high torque and angle netrunners would not
cause tilt-induced errors. Id. at 23 (citing PO Resp. 59; Ex. 1003, 81–82;
Ex. 1039, 55:1–58:10; Ex. 1044, 3:12–35, 8:27–9:31; Ex. 1045, 3:31–63,
5:52–61).
(3) Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
For the Claimed Torque Requirements, Patent Owner replies that
IBM’s labels in its only figure state “TORQUE” and “POSITIONAL” and
would indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art that they are not numerical
data. PO Sur-reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003; Ex. 2035 ¶ 109). Patent Owner also
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
43
argues that IBM “says nothing about ‘torque transducers’” and describes
“linking into a hall effect sensor in the driver,” not a torque transducer. Id.
at 9 (citing Ex. 1003, 82). Patent Owner asserts that “hall effect sensor”
indicates a clutch tool. Id. (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 58). According to Patent
Owner, others, including Petitioner, use “torque” to describe a clutch output.
Id. at 9–10 (citing Ex. 2001, 1:54–60, 2:14-20; Ex. 2066, 5; Ex. 2068;
Ex. 2069, 11:8–27; Exs. 2052–2057).
Patent Owner also replies that the 8097 microcontroller indicates a
clutch tool, and “at the time that all torque transducer tools were designed
with proprietary controllers and cabling.” PO Sur-reply 11 (citing Ex. 2035
¶¶ 63–66, 157). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner does not rebut that
ordinary skilled artisans would not have used a torque transducer tool with
the 8097 microcontroller, which would have exceeded the relevant skill
level, and that the only related reply argument is attorney argument. Id.
(citing Pet. Reply 15, 16). According to Patent Owner, turning an 8097
microcontroller into a torque controller was not feasible at the time of
invention. Id. at 12–13 (citing Reply 16–18; Ex. 2035 ¶ 29; Ex. 2070;
Ex. 2071; Ex. 2072). Patent Owner also contends that Dr. Davis does not
understand the capabilities of the 8097 microprocessor. Id. at 13 (citing
Ex. 2060, 99:10–15, 101:13–20, 105:10–106:23, 148:15–150:6).
Patent Owner further replies that “skilled artisans would have known
that using a torque transducer tool in IBM would have negated its concept”
of avoiding rehits, a concept known to Petitioner. PO Sur-reply 15 (citing
PO Resp. 41–42; Ex. 1040, 8:32–40; Ex. 2039, 124; Ex. 2066, 6–7;
Ex. 2073, 15, 42, 108, 139, 182; Ex. 2074; Ex. 2077, 45, 56, 71). Patent
Owner argues that IBM’s 8097 microcontroller, Hall effect sensor, and pull-
wire position sensing would have been understood to be related to a clutch
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
44
tool. Id. at 15–16. Patent Owner also argues that both parties’ declarants
testified that Hall effect sensors sense magnetic field changes, and Dr. Davis
explained that they do not measure torque. Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 57–
58; Ex. 2060, 45:23–46:16, 50:17–51:2, 52:1–13, 58:14–19, 110:25–111:10,
158:13–160:12).
Patent Owner further argues that IBM never uses the terms Hall effect
torque sensor or Hall effect torque transducer, and the terms only appear in
the Reply. PO Sur-reply 17 (citing Pet. Reply 6–7). Patent Owner
additionally argues that ordinary skilled artisans would have understood that
IBM connects to a proximity switch in a clutch tool when it states “linking
into a hall effect sensor.” Id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 58). According to
Patent Owner, a torque transducer with a Hall effect sensor is a complex
circuit (id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 2075, 4:27–44, 5:7–9, 6:16–36, Figs. 4–8)),
and Petitioner’s arguments about such a sensor are unsupported and
incorrect because such a sensor was developed in the mid-2000’s (id. at 19–
20 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 37, 112, 155)). Patent Owner asserts that such
sensors would have not been considered for IBM. Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 2035
¶¶ 37, 112, 155). Patent Owner also asserts that Dr. Davis was not sure if
Hall effect sensors alone were used in tools. Id. (citing Ex. 2062, 54:22–
55:5, 55:10–18).
Regarding additionally cited references, Patent Owner contends none
of them uses the term Hall effect torque sensor, and they instead confirm
that Hall effect sensors measure magnetic field changes. PO Sur-reply 20
(citing Pet. Reply 12; Exs. 1044–1048, 1050–1053). Patent Owner also
contends that Hall effect torque transducers are expensive. Id. at 21 (citing
Pet. Reply 9; Ex. 1046, 8:51–60; Ex. 2076). Patent Owner further contends
that Petitioner’s remaining reply arguments do not show that a transducer
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
45
tool and controller would have been used in IBM. Id. (citing Pet. Reply 9–
10, 13; Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 26, 39).
(4) Petitioner Shows that IBM Teaches or Suggests the
Claimed Torque Requirements
For the wherein clause requiring the “electronic controller also has
stored in its memory first and second predetermined torque values . . . ,”
(limitations “26(12)” and “26(13)”), we find that IBM teaches “sens[ing]
when correct torque is achieved” and shows “TORQUE” is sent to
microcontroller 6. Ex. 1003, 81–82. We also credit Dr. Davis’s testimony
that “set torque” must be stored in IBM’s memory because IBM supports it.
Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 108, 110 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82). We further credit Dr.
Davis’s testimony that it would have also been obvious to store “set torque”
so that IBM can determine “when correct torque is achieved” because IBM
supports it. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 82). Additionally, as discussed below, we
determine that one of ordinary skill in the art would have applied IBM to
assembling Fredrick’s seat. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 109, 165–167.
As stated above, we find that IBM teaches that “controller circuit 6
needs to be able to enable/disable the power to the torque driver 6 by use of
a simple relay or FET to sense when correct torque is achieved by linking
into a hall effect sensor in the driver 11,” “[f]urther positions become invalid
if screw torque on the previous position is not achieved,” and that “an
operator is compelled . . . into applying the driver to the screws in a
particular sequence, and he must also wait for the set torque to be achieved
on each screw before moving onto the next screw.” Ex. 1003, 81–82; see
also Ex. 1002 ¶ 111 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82).
IBM also explicitly describes “a screw torque sequence verification
system,” that addresses the “problem” of “ensur[ing] screws 5 . . . are
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
46
tightened to a specific torque in a specific sequence” and makes “an operator
. . . wait for the set torque to be achieved on each screw before moving onto
the next screw.” Ex. 1003, 82. IBM’s system also “enables the controller to
learn . . . the sequence required.” Id.
Even if we agreed with Patent Owner that IBM uses a clutch-
controlled tool, IBM does not exclude the use of a tool that can measure
torque. Pet. Reply 7, 9. Petitioner also shows that clutch-controlled tools
with sensors to verify correct torque were known at the time. Id. at 9–10;
Ex. 1039, 32:4–20, 42:2–5; Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 24–26; see also Pet. Reply 11–12
(arguing that Hall effect torque sensors were well known at the time);
Ex. 1039, 53:16–54:22. Based on record evidence indicating knowledge at
the time about tools with torque sensors and IBM’s express statement about
“sens[ing] when correct torque is achieved,” IBM, at least, suggests the use
of such tools in its system.
Also, because IBM ensures screws are fastened to the “correct
torque,” IBM’s Hall effect sensor must measure torque so that IBM can
address the stated problem of “ensur[ing] screws 5 . . . are tightened to a
specific torque in a specific sequence.” Ex. 1003, 82 (emphasis added);
Ex. 2060, 56:22–57:22, 105:10–106:23, 140:10–25, 145:7–148:14, 155:2–6,
157:4–158:12.
In view of the full record, we credit Dr. Davis’s testimony regarding
IBM’s sensed torque because IBM expressly supports it. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 108
(citing Ex. 1003, 82), 111 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82); Ex. 2060, 104:11–105:9,
110:4–113:8, 136:6–139:13. We also give minimal weight to Mr. Lehnert’s
testimony regarding an apparatus that he saw and claims was the apparatus
described in IBM. Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 73, 74, 76, 77, 149.
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
47
Regarding whether IBM’s 8097 microcontroller can be made to work
with a tool with a torque transducer, IBM states that “[t]he microcontroller
circuit only needs to be basic - the intel 8097 microcontroller with a small
amount of I/O logic and a display suffices.” Ex. 1003, 81–82. IBM does not
limit microcontroller circuit 6 to just the 8097 microcontroller. See Pet.
Reply 7 (arguing that IBM is not limited to the application shown). Thus,
given the evidence in the record about known controllers at the time, IBM, at
least, suggests an electronic controller that can work with a tool having a
torque transducer.
Further, the parties’ declarants cite to Exhibit 2047 and give
conflicting testimony about whether the 8097 microcontroller was powerful
enough to work a tool with a torque transducer, and the parties do not point
to other evidence about the capabilities of the 8097 microcontroller.
Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 29, 63–65, 119–121, 157; Ex. 2062, 155:17–156:22. Given
IBM’s express description of “sens[ing] when correct torque is achieved by
linking into a hall effect sensor in the driver 11” and that “intel 8097
microcontroller . . . suffices,” we find that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that IBM uses the 8097 microcontroller as an
example of controller circuit 6 and would not have understood that controller
circuit 6 must be the 8097 microcontroller. Ex. 1003, 82. Therefore, in
view of IBM’s statements, such as “sens[ing] when correct torque is
achieved by linking into a hall effect sensor in the driver 11,” we find that
IBM teaches or suggests a tool with a torque transducer and appropriate
controller, if the 8097 microcontroller itself would have been inadequate.
Based on the full record, because IBM teaches “controller circuit 6
needs to be able to enable/disable the power to the torque driver 6 by use of
a simple relay or FET to sense when correct torque is achieved by linking
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
48
into a hall effect sensor in the driver 11” and “describes “a screw torque
sequence verification system” to address the “problem” of “ensur[ing]
screws 5 . . . are tightened to a specific torque in a specific sequence,”
Petitioner persuades us that IBM and Fredrick teach or suggest the Claimed
Torque Requirements.
k) which reduces the risk of structural failure of the assembled
combination that would result if the operator were allowed to
insert a fastener in the second fastening location when the
torque applied to the first fastener does not equal the first
predetermined torque value; . . . which reduces the risk of
structural failure of the assembled combination that would
result if the operator were allowed to complete assembly of the
first and second components when the torque applied to the
fastener inserted in the second fastening location did not equal
the second predetermined torque value.
As discussed above, Petitioner shows, and Patent Owner does not
dispute, that Fredrick teaches assembling fastening bracket 14b to lower seat
assembly 12. Pet. 10–11 (referring to these limitations as “26(14)” and
“26(14) (continued)”), 55–56 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 173, 178; Ex. 1014, 102–
103; Ex. 1015, 30–31), 60; Ex. 1007, 3:9–12, Fig. 1; see also Ex. 1002
¶¶ 173, 178 (we credit Dr. Davis’s testimony regarding this limitation
because he shows how Fredrick supports his opinion).
Because Fredrick teaches fasteners to assemble components into an
assembled combination, Petitioner persuades us that Fredrick teaches the
above quoted limitations of claim 26. As discussed above in Sections
II.E.1.f.4. and II.E.1.j.4., Petitioner persuades us that IBM teaches the
Claimed Sequence and Torque Requirements, and as discussed below,
Petitioner proposes combining IBM and Fredrick to reduce the risk of
structural failure. See Pet. 50–54, 60–62.
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
49
l) Reason to Combine
Petitioner proposes applying IBM to three bolts in Fredrick that fasten
bracket 14b to lower seat assembly 12. Pet. 50–51 (citing Ex. 1007, 2:65–
3:12, Fig. 1). Petitioner also contends that Sabatini and Gass confirm that it
would have been obvious to apply IBM to Fredrick. Id. at 60.
Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
known that “a particular sequence for Fredrick’s three bolts would reduce
the risk of structural failure through warping, mistorqued bolts or residual
stresses.” Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1011 (declarant testimony from IPR2014-
00305) ¶¶ 48–49; Ex. 1013 (Applicant’s Reply Brief from the prosecution
history of a related patent), 22; Ex. 1014 (deposition transcript from
IPR2014-00305), 95–97, 102–103). According to Petitioner,
to compensate for variations in hole/fastening locations in
assemblies like vehicle seats (e.g., Fredrick’s bracket 14b and
seat assembly 12), it was well-known to provide a smaller
locating/datum hole at the first fastening location and
progressively larger holes at the second and third fastening
locations, and then sequentially insert/fasten the bolts in the first
through third fastening locations.
Id. at 52–53 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 164; Ex. 1011 ¶ 20; Ex. 1012 (deposition
transcript from IPR2014-00305), 55:10–56:10; Ex. 1014, 205–206).
Petitioner accordingly argues that “[i]t was obvious to have used such
locating/datum holes on Fredrick’s bracket 14b to compensate for variations
in hole locations” and that “[o]nce datum/locating holes are used, [persons
of ordinary skill in the art] knew that the correct order of inserting/fastening
(from small hole to progressively larger holes) would reduce the risk of
structural failure.” Pet. 53 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 165; Ex. 1011 ¶ 20; Ex. 1014,
102–103; Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 3–5). Petitioner also argues that persons of ordinary
skill in the art “knew that such seat-assembling bolts must be tightened to a
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
50
‘predetermined torque’ to reduce risk of loose or overtightened bolts, which
would risk structural failure” (id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 166)), and “[i]t was
therefore obvious to apply IBM’s forced-sequence system to the sequenced
fastening of Fredrick’s bolts” so as “to ‘ensure’ that Fredrick’s bolts are
fastened ‘to a specific torque in a specific sequence,’ thereby reducing the
risk of structural failure that would occur if Fredrick’s bolts were fastened in
the wrong order or to the wrong torque” (id. at 53–54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 167;
Ex. 1003, 82)).
Petitioner further argues that “Sabatini teaches the benefits of
assembling vehicle seats at assembly stations of an assembly line” and that
“Gass (¶ [0006]) also teaches the use of conveyors to streamline vehicle
component production.” Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1008, 55). Petitioner asserts that
“[i]t was therefore obvious to incorporate IBM’s assembly station into
Sabatini’s or Gass’s assembly line to achieve those benefits when
assembling Fredrick’s seat.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 190–193). Patent
Owner does not respond specifically to Petitioner’s asserted reason for
combining IBM, Fredrick, Sabatini, and Gass. See generally PO Resp.
Based on the full record before us, Petitioner persuades us that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have applied IBM to Fredrick’s seat.
Petitioner’s citations to record evidence support its arguments that Fredrick’s
bolts would have each been tightened to a specific torque in a specific
sequence. Ex. 1003, 82 (“The problem is to ensure that four screws 5 fixing
two product parts 3 & 4 together are tightened to a specific torque in a
specific sequence.”); Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 20, 48–49; Ex. 1012, 55:10–56:10;
Ex. 1013, 22; Ex. 1014, 95–97, 102–103, 205–206; Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 3–5; see
also Ex. 1015, 30–31 (determining in IPR2014-00305 that it “would have
yielded the predictable and improved result of facilitating the assembly of a
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
51
vehicle seat and lowering defects by allowing the sequence of fasteners to be
controlled when assembling the vehicle seat”). We also credit Petitioner’s
declarant testimony regarding the asserted reason to combine IBM and
Fredrick because it also finds support in the record. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 165–
167 (citing Ex. 1003, 82; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 20, 49; Ex. 1012, 55:10–56:10;
Ex. 1014, 102:22–103:02).
Also, based on the full record, Petitioner persuades us that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have further modified the application of IBM
to Fredrick’s seat by using the assembly line of Sabatini or Gass to achieve
the benefits of such assembly described by Sabatini and Gass. Ex. 1005 ¶ 6
(indicating that “an automobile production line” can accommodate different
standards “[s]ince automobile bodies may be subject to different standards,
for example a US version or EU version”); Ex. 1008, 55 (describing that
“[e]ach cell has a measured takt time, which ensures that the line can run at
an optimal speed” and that adding operators “can adapt production levels to
Ford’s demand” and “reduce takt time”). We credit Petitioner’s declarant
testimony regarding the further modification because it finds support in the
record. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 190–193 (citing Ex. 1003, 81, 82; Ex. 1005 ¶ 6;
Ex. 1008, 55; Ex. 1023, 27–28). Regarding reasonable expectation of
success in making the proposed modification, IBM, Sabatini, and Gass
indicate that it was within ordinary skill in the art to compel tightening
screws to specific torque in a specific sequence and tighten fasteners of a
seat on an assembly line. Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶ 6; Ex. 1008, 55.
For the reasons above, Petitioner persuades us that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have combined IBM, Fredrick, Sabatini, and Gass in
the manner asserted with a reasonable expectation of success.
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
52
2. Analysis of Claim 27
Claim 27 depends from claim 26 and recites
wherein the fastening tool forms a part of an assembly
station, the electronic controller requiring the first and second
components to remain in the assembly station until after it is
verified that (a) the operator’s use of the fastening tool
conformed to the predetermined sequence of fastening for the
single process site, and (b) torque values equal to the first and
second predetermined torque values were applied to fasteners
located in the first and second fastening locations when the
operator’s use of the fastening tool conformed to the
predetermined sequence of fastening for the single process site.
Ex. 1001, 18:57–67.
Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that Gass and
Sabatini teach the benefits of an assembly line with an assembly station for
bolting together automobile components, and that it would have been
obvious to implement IBM at an assembly station that holds those
components and to use stop mechanisms or alarms to correct a problem as
taught by Sabatini. Pet. 44–48 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 133–145, 149–152;
Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 2, 6, 7, 46; Ex. 1008, 54–55; Ex. 1011 ¶ 14;
Ex. 1014, 233; Ex. 1023, 27–28; Ex. 1031, 16–17, 19), 62 (citing Ex. 1002
¶¶ 197, 200).
As discussed above, we find that Gass and Sabatini describe
advantages of using assembly lines to assemble automobile components.
Ex. 1005 ¶ 6 (indicating that “an automobile production line” can
accommodate different standards “[s]ince automobile bodies may be subject
to different standards, for example a US version or EU version”); Ex. 1008,
55 (describing that “[e]ach cell has a measured takt time, which ensures that
the line can run at an optimal speed” and that adding operators “can adapt
production levels to Ford’s demand” and “reduce takt time”). We also find
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
53
that Sabatini describes using a “cell” in an assembly line and its associated
benefits. Ex. 1008, 55. We further credit Dr. Davis’s testimony regarding
the teachings of these references and the reason why one of ordinary skill in
the art would have combined the references in the manner asserted because
record evidence supports his opinion. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 133–145 (citing
Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 2, 6, 46; Ex. 1008, 55; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 14–17;
Ex. 1014, 233; Ex. 1017, 12–13; Ex. 1023, 27–30; Ex. 1031, 16–17, 19),
149–152 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 68, 74–79, Figs. 8–10;
Ex. 1023, 29), 197 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 7, 46; Ex. 1008, 55; Ex. 1014,
233:2–9; Ex. 1017, 12–13), 200.
Thus, in view of our findings that Gass and Sabatini teach assembly
lines and an assembly station, we find that the combination of IBM,
Fredrick, Gass and Sabatini teaches the limitations of claim 27 and that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these references in the
manner asserted.
3. Analysis of Claim 28
Claim 28 depends from claim 27 and recites
wherein the electronic controller produces an alarm
simultaneously with when an attempt is made to remove the first
and second components from the assembly station before it is
verified that (a) the operator’s use of the fastening tool conforms
to the predetermined sequence of fastening for the single process
site, and (b) torque values equal to the first and second
predetermined torque values were applied to fasteners located in
the first and second fastening locations when the operator’s use
of the fastening tool conformed to the predetermined sequence
of fastening for the single process site.
Ex. 1001, 19:1–12.
For claim 28, Petitioner asserts, and Patent Owner does not dispute,
the same arguments summarized above for claim 27. Pet. 44–48 (citing
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
54
Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 133–145, 149–152; Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 2, 6, 7, 46;
Ex. 1008, 54–55; Ex. 1011 ¶ 14; Ex. 1014, 233; Ex. 1023, 27–28; Ex. 1031,
16–17, 19), 62 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 197, 200), 62 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 197,
200).
We find that IBM teaches a display (Ex. 1003, 81) and Sabatini
teaches that “[o]perators use torque-sensing guns with visual indicators,”
and “[i]f fasteners are not run to the correct torque setting, a light above the
line comes on and the line shuts down until an operator corrects the
problem” (Ex. 1008, 55). We further credit Dr. Davis’s testimony regarding
the teachings of these references and the reason why one of ordinary skill in
the art would have combined the references in the manner asserted because
record evidence supports his opinion. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 133–145 (citing Ex.
1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 2, 6, 46; Ex. 1008, 55; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 14–17;
Ex. 1014, 233; Ex. 1017, 12–13; Ex. 1023, 27–30; Ex. 1031, 16–17, 19),
149–152 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 68, 74–79, Figs. 8–10; Ex.
1023, 29), 197 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 7, 46; Ex. 1008, 55; Ex. 1014, 233:2–9;
Ex. 1017, 12–13), 200.
Thus, in view of our findings above, we find that the combination of
IBM, Fredrick, Gass and Sabatini teaches the limitations of claim 28 and
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these references in
the manner asserted.
4. Analysis of Claim 29
Claim 29 depends from claim 28 and recites “wherein the assembly
system further comprises a stop mechanism that requires the first and second
components to remain in the assembly station.” Ex. 1001, 19:13–16.
For claim 29, Petitioner asserts, and Patent Owner does not dispute,
the same arguments summarized above for claim 27. Pet. 44–48 (citing
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
55
Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 133–145, 149–152; Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 2, 6, 7, 46;
Ex. 1008, 54–55; Ex. 1011 ¶ 14; Ex. 1014, 233; Ex. 1023, 27–28; Ex. 1031,
16–17, 19), 62 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 197, 200).
Our findings for claims 27 and 28 also show that IBM, Gass, and
Sabatini teach these limitations. Ex. 1008, 55 (“[i]f fasteners are not run to
the correct torque setting, a light above the line comes on and the line shuts
down until an operator corrects the problem”). We also credit Dr. Davis’s
testimony regarding the teachings of these references and the reason why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references in the
manner asserted because record evidence supports his opinion. Ex. 1002
¶¶ 133–145 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 2, 6, 46; Ex. 1008, 55;
Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 14–17; Ex. 1014, 233; Ex. 1017, 12–13; Ex. 1023, 27–30; Ex.
1031, 16–17, 19), 149–152 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 68, 74–79,
Figs. 8–10; Ex. 1023, 29), 197 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 7, 46; Ex. 1008, 55; Ex.
1014, 233:2–9; Ex. 1017, 12–13), 200.
Based on our findings above for claims 27 and 28, we find that the
combination of IBM, Fredrick, Gass and Sabatini teaches the limitations of
claim 29 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these
references in the manner asserted.
5. Analysis of Claim 30
Claim 30 depends from claim 29 and recites “wherein the stop
mechanism prevents removal of the first and second components from the
assembly station.” Ex. 1001, 19:17–19.
For claim 30, Petitioner asserts, and Patent Owner does not dispute,
the same arguments summarized above for claim 27. Pet. 44–48 (citing
Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 133–145, 149–152; Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 2, 6, 7, 46;
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
56
Ex. 1008, 54–55; Ex. 1011 ¶ 14; Ex. 1014, 233; Ex. 1023, 27–28; Ex. 1031,
16–17, 19), 62 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 197, 200).
Our findings for claims 27–29 also show that IBM, Gass, and Sabatini
teach these limitations. We also credit Dr. Davis’s testimony regarding the
teachings of these references and the reason why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have combined the references in the manner asserted because
record evidence supports his opinion. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 133–145 (citing
Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 2, 6, 46; Ex. 1008, 55; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 14–17;
Ex. 1014, 233; Ex. 1017, 12–13; Ex. 1023, 27–30; Ex. 1031, 16–17, 19),
149–152 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 68, 74–79, Figs. 8–10;
Ex. 1023, 29), 197 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 7, 46; Ex. 1008, 55; Ex. 1014,
233:2–9; Ex. 1017, 12–13), 200.
Based on our findings above for claims 27–29, we find that the
combination of IBM, Fredrick, Gass and Sabatini teaches the limitations of
claim 30 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these
references in the manner asserted.
6. Analysis of Claim 31
Claim 31 depends from claim 30 and recites “wherein the fixture is
carried by a conveyor into and out of the assembly station the movement of
which is stopped by the stop mechanism.” Ex. 1001, 19:20–22.
For claim 31, Petitioner asserts, and Patent Owner does not dispute,
the same arguments summarized above for claim 27. Pet. 44–48 (citing
Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 133–145, 149–152; Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 2, 6, 7, 46;
Ex. 1008, 54–55; Ex. 1011 ¶ 14; Ex. 1014, 233; Ex. 1023, 27–28; Ex. 1031,
16–17, 19), 62 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 197, 200).
Our findings for claims 27–30 also show that IBM, Gass, and Sabatini
teach these limitations. We also credit Dr. Davis’s testimony regarding the
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
57
teachings of these references and the reason why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have combined the references in the manner asserted because
record evidence supports his opinion. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 133–145 (citing
Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 2, 6, 46; Ex. 1008, 55; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 14–17;
Ex. 1014, 233; Ex. 1017, 12–13; Ex. 1023, 27–30; Ex. 1031, 16–17, 19),
149–152 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 68, 74–79, Figs. 8–10;
Ex. 1023, 29), 197 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 7, 46; Ex. 1008, 55; Ex. 1014,
233:2–9; Ex. 1017, 12–13), 200.
Based on our findings above for claims 27–30, we find that the
combination of IBM, Fredrick, Gass and Sabatini teaches the limitations of
claim 31 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these
references in the manner asserted.
7. Analysis of Claim 32
Claim 32 depends from claim 31 and recites “wherein the conveyor
comprises an intermittent conveyor.” Ex. 1001, 19:23–24.
Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that it would
have been obvious to use an intermittent conveyor to assemble Fredrick’s
seat using IBM because it would “make[] it easier for operators to perform
fastening operations on stationary assemblies, and facilitates buffering that
prevents a delay at one station from holding up the line.” Pet. 48–49 (citing
Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 146–153; Ex. 1005 ¶ 6; Ex. 1023, 28–30; Ex. 1029 ¶ 51;
Ex. 1031, 17), 62, 64–65 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 199).
We find that Gass teaches a production line. Ex. 1005 ¶ 6 (indicating
that “an automobile production line” can accommodate different standards
“[s]ince automobile bodies may be subject to different standards”). We also
credit Dr. Davis’s testimony regarding conveyors and the reason why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references in the manner
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
58
asserted because record evidence supports his opinion. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 146–
153 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 68, 74–79, Figs. 8–10;
Ex. 1014, 60–62; Ex. 1017, 12; Ex. 1023, 28), 199 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 15;
Ex. 1017, 12; Ex. 1023, 28–30; Ex. 1029 ¶ 51).
We, thus, find that the combination of IBM, Fredrick, Gass and
Sabatini teaches the limitations of claim 32 and that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have combined these references in the manner asserted.
8. Analysis of Claim 33
Claim 33 depends from claim 31 and recites “wherein the conveyor
comprises a continuous conveyor.” Ex. 1001, 19:25–26.
Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that it would
have been obvious to use a continuous conveyor to assemble Fredrick’s seat
using IBM because “continuous conveyors avoid unexpected stops/starts and
have long been used to move assemblies between stations.” Pet. 48–49
(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 146–153; Ex. 1005 ¶ 6; Ex. 1023, 28–30; Ex. 1029 ¶ 51;
Ex. 1031, 17), 62, 64–65 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 199).
We find that Gass teaches a production line. Ex. 1005 ¶ 6 (indicating
that “an automobile production line” can accommodate different standards
“[s]ince automobile bodies may be subject to different standards”). We also
credit Dr. Davis’s testimony regarding conveyors and the reason why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references in the manner
asserted because record evidence supports his opinion. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 146–
153 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 68, 74–79, Figs. 8–10;
Ex. 1014, 60–62; Ex. 1017, 12; Ex. 1023, 28), 199 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 15;
Ex. 1017, 12; Ex. 1023, 28–30; Ex. 1029 ¶ 51).
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
59
We, thus, find that the combination of IBM, Fredrick, Gass and
Sabatini teaches the limitations of claim 33 and that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have combined these references in the manner asserted.
9. Analysis of Claim 34
Claim 34 depends from claim 26 and recites “wherein the first and
second components comprise components of a vehicle seat.” Ex. 1001,
19:27–28.
Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that Fredrick
teaches the limitations of claim 34. Pet. 57–58 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 183;
Ex. 1007, 2:65–3:12), 60, 62.
We find that the relied-upon portions of Fredrick teach and show seat
frame 10 that “includes a lower seat assembly 12” and “recliner assembly
14,” and that “recliner assembly 14 includes upper and lower mounting
brackets 14a and 14b that are secured to the lower seat assembly 12.”
Ex. 1007, 2:65–3:12, Fig. 1. We credit the testimony of Dr. Davis regarding
claim 34 because Fredrick supports it. Ex. 1002 ¶ 183 (citing Ex. 1007,
2:65–3:12, Fig. 1).
Because Fredrick teaches and shows lower seat assembly 12 and
recliner assembly 14 comprise a seat frame for a vehicle, Petitioner
persuades us that Fredrick teaches the limitations of claim 34.
10. Analysis of Claim 35
Claim 35 depends from claim 26 and recites “wherein the article of
assembly comprises a vehicle seat.” Ex. 1001, 19:29–30.
Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that Fredrick
teaches the limitations of claim 34. Pet. 57–58 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 183;
Ex. 1007, 2:65–3:12), 60, 62.
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
60
We find that the relied-upon portions of Fredrick teach and show that
lower seat assembly 12 and recliner assembly 14 are assembled to form a
seat frame for a vehicle. Ex. 1007, 2:65–3:12, Fig. 1; see also id. at 2:35–
36, 2:62–65. We credit the testimony of Dr. Davis regarding claim 35
because Fredrick supports it. Ex. 1002 ¶ 183 (citing Ex. 1007, 2:65–3:12,
Fig. 1).
Because Fredrick teaches and shows that lower seat assembly 12 and
recliner assembly 14 are assembled to form a seat frame for a vehicle,
Petitioner persuades us that Fredrick teaches the limitations of claim 35.
11. Analysis of Claim 36
Claim 36 depends from claim 26 and recites “wherein the assembly
station forms a part of a conveyor line.” Ex. 1001, 19:31–32.
Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that it would
have been obvious to use a conveyor to assemble Fredrick’s seat using IBM.
Pet. 48–49 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 146–153; Ex. 1005 ¶ 6; Ex. 1023, 28–30;
Ex. 1029 ¶ 51; Ex. 1031, 17), 62, 64–65 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 199).
We find that Sabatini and Gass describe conveyor lines. Ex. 1005
¶¶ 6, 15; Ex. 1008, 55. We also credit Dr. Davis’s testimony that it would
have been obvious to use a conveyor because record evidence supports it.
Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 146–153 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 68, 74–79,
Figs. 8–10; Ex. 1014, 60–62; Ex. 1017, 12; Ex. 1023, 28), 199 (citing
Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 68, 74–79, Figs. 8–10; Ex. 1014, 60–62; Ex. 1017, 12;
Ex. 1023, 28–30; Ex. 1029 ¶ 51).
Based on the full record, Petitioner persuades us that IBM, Fredrick,
Sabatini, and Gass teach the limitations of claim 36 and one of ordinary skill
in the art would have combined these references in the manner asserted.
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
61
12. Analysis of Claim 37
Claim 37 depends from claim 36 and recites “wherein the conveyor
comprises an intermittent conveyor.” Ex. 1001, 19:33–34.
Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that it would
have been obvious to use an intermittent conveyor to assemble Fredrick’s
seat using IBM. Pet. 48–49 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 146–153; Ex. 1005 ¶ 6;
Ex. 1023, 28–30; Ex. 1029 ¶ 51; Ex. 1031, 17), 62, 64–65 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶
199).
We find that Sabatini and Gass describe conveyor lines. Ex. 1002
¶ 199; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 15. We also credit Dr. Davis’s testimony that it would
have been obvious to use an intermittent conveyor because record evidence
supports it. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 146–153 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6,
68, 74–79, Figs. 8–10; Ex. 1014, 60–62; Ex. 1017, 12; Ex. 1023, 28), 199
(citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 68, 74–79, Figs. 8–10; Ex. 1014, 60–62; Ex. 1017, 12;
Ex. 1023, 28–30; Ex. 1029 ¶ 51).
Based on the full record, Petitioner persuades us that IBM, Fredrick,
Sabatini, and Gass teach the limitations of claim 37 and one of ordinary skill
in the art would have combined these references in the manner asserted.
13. Analysis of Claim 38
Claim 38 depends from claim 36 and recites “wherein the conveyor
comprises a continuous conveyor.” Ex. 1001, 19:35–36.
Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that it would
have been obvious to use a continuous conveyor to assemble Fredrick’s seat
using IBM. Pet. 48–49 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 146–153; Ex. 1005 ¶ 6;
Ex. 1023, 28–30; Ex. 1029 ¶ 51; Ex. 1031, 17), 62, 64–65 (citing Ex. 1002
¶ 199).
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
62
We find that Sabatini and Gass describe conveyor lines. Ex. 1002
¶ 199; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 15. We also credit Dr. Davis’s testimony that it would
have been obvious to use a continuous conveyor because record evidence
supports it. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 146–153 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6,
68, 74–79, Figs. 8–10; Ex. 1014, 60–62; Ex. 1017, 12; Ex. 1023, 28), 199
(citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 68, 74–79, Figs. 8–10; Ex. 1014, 60–62; Ex. 1017, 12;
Ex. 1023, 28–30; Ex. 1029 ¶ 51).
Based on the full record, Petitioner persuades us that IBM, Fredrick,
Sabatini, and Gass teach the limitations of claim 38 and one of ordinary skill
in the art would have combined these references in the manner asserted.
14. Analysis of Claim 39
Claim 39 depends from claim 26 and recites “wherein the electronic
controller, when executing the predetermined sequence program, disables
the fastening tool when it is not in either the first or second positions.”
Ex. 1001, 19:37–40.
Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that IBM
teaches the limitations of claim 39. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 182; Ex. 1003,
82), 56 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 180), 60, 62.
We find that IBM teaches that “[p]ower is not applied to the driver 11
until comparison of measured and stored correct dimensions show it to be in
the correct position.” Ex. 1003, 82. We also credit Dr. Davis’s testimony
for claim 39 because IBM supports it. Ex. 1002 ¶ 180 (citing Ex. 1003, 82).
Petitioner, thus, persuades us that IBM teaches the limitations of
claim 39. Also, as discussed above, Petitioner persuades us that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined IBM, Fredrick, Sabatini, and
Gass in the manner asserted.
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
63
15. Analysis of Claim 40
Claim 40 depends from claim 26 and recites
wherein the at least one sensor comprises first and second
targets arranged in relation to the first and second fastening
locations, the first and second targets being sensed when said
fastening is occurring at the first and second fastening locations,
respectively, and wherein the electronic controller is adapted to
generate an electronic target output based upon said sensing that
differentiates between the first and second targets thereby
indicating when the fastening tool is in either of the first and
second fastening locations.
Ex. 1001, 19:41–20:8.
Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to
replace IBM’s tethered tool position sensor 1 (with its
tethering wire 2) with Gass’s alternative wireless, tool position
sensor (“recognizing means”) to eliminate the mobility
constraints and awkwardness that IBM’s wire(s) 2 impose on
IBM’s tool and/or to better sense the tool position relative to
fastening locations that are moving on Sabatini’s/Gass’s
conveyor
Pet. 50 (emphases omitted) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 154–158), 62 (citing
Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 197, 200).
As discussed above, IBM teaches an “electric torque driver 11 and
commercial ‘pull-wire’ position transducer 1 are both linked to a
microcontroller circuit 6.” Ex. 1003, 82. We also find that Gass teaches a
recognizing means that can be part of a process tool. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 15, 33,
Figs. 3a, 3b. We also credit Dr. Davis’s testimony that it would have been
obvious to replace IBM’s transducer 1 with Gass’s recognizing means
because record evidence supports it. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 154–158 (citing Ex. 1003,
81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶ 6, Fig. 3c).
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
64
Based on the full record, Petitioner persuades us that IBM, Fredrick,
Sabatini, and Gass teach the limitations of claim 40 and one of ordinary skill
in the art would have combined these references in the manner asserted.
16. Analysis of Claim 41
Claim 41 depends from claim 26 and recites “wherein each fastener
consists of a threaded fastener.” Ex. 1001, 20:9–10.
Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not dispute, the Fredrick’s
bolts teach the limitations of claim 41. Pet. 56 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 181;
Ex. 1007, 3:12), 62.
We find that the relied-upon portion of Fredrick teaches and shows
that “recliner assembly 14 includes upper and lower mounting brackets 14a
and 14b that are secured to the lower seat assembly 12 and seat back frame
16, respectively, by conventional means, such as bolts.” Ex. 1007, 3:9–12,
Fig. 1. We also credit the testimony of Dr. Davis regarding claim 41
because Fredrick supports it. Ex. 1002 ¶ 181 (citing Ex. 1007, 3:9–12,
Fig. 1).
Because Fredrick teaches and shows bolts, Petitioner persuades us that
Fredrick teaches the limitations of claim 41. Also, as discussed above,
Petitioner persuades us that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
combined IBM, Fredrick, Sabatini, and Gass in the manner asserted.
17. Analysis of Claim 42
Claim 42 depends from claim 26 and recites “wherein the article of
assembly includes an unassembled base frame.” Ex. 1001, 20:11–12.
Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that Fredrick
teaches seat track 120 and its lower portion is an unassembled base frame.
Pet. 57–58 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 183; Ex. 1007, 2:65–3:12), 60, 62.
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
65
We find that Fredrick teaches and shows seat track 120, and we credit
the testimony of Dr. Davis regarding claim 42 because Fredrick supports it.
Ex. 1002 ¶ 183; Ex. 1007, 2:65–3:12.
Because Fredrick teaches and shows bolts, Petitioner persuades us that
Fredrick teaches the limitations of claim 42. Also, as discussed above,
Petitioner persuades us that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
combined IBM, Fredrick, Sabatini, and Gass in the manner asserted.
18. Analysis of Claim 43
Claim 43 depends from claim 42 and recites “wherein the
unassembled based frame is clamped into the fixture.” Ex. 1001, 20:13–14.
Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that it would
have been obvious to clamp Fredrick’s seat to IBM’s fixture “to ensure
accurate sensing of IBM’s tool’s position relative to Fredrick’s fastening
locations, (2) give the operator secure and safe access to Fredrick’s
fastening locations, and/or (3) provide an easy way to mount/release
Fredrick’s seat components to/from IBM’s fixture.” Pet. 59 (citing Ex. 1002
¶¶ 184–185; Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1017, 11; Ex. 1031, 17), 62–64 (citing
Ex. 1002 ¶ 198; Ex. 1005 ¶ 6; Ex. 1008, 55; Ex. 1023, 27; Ex. 1029 ¶ 48;
Ex. 1031, 17).
As discussed above, we find that IBM teaches locating fixture 10 and
Fredrick teaches seat track 20. Ex. 1003, 82; Ex. 1007, 2:65–3:12. We
credit the testimony of Dr. Davis regarding claim 43 because record
evidence supports it. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 184–185 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82;
Ex. 1007, Fig. 1), 198 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶ 6; Ex. 1008, 55;
Ex. 1017, 11; Ex. 1023, 27–30).
Petitioner, thus, persuades us that IBM teaches the limitations of
claim 43. Also, as discussed above, Petitioner persuades us that one of
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
66
ordinary skill in the art would have combined IBM, Fredrick, Sabatini, and
Gass in the manner asserted.
19. Analysis of Claim 44
Claim 44 depends from claim 43 and recites “wherein the fixture and
unasssembled based frame are provided by means of a continuous moving
line conveyor.” Ex. 1001, 20:15–17.
Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that it would
have been obvious to use a continuous conveyor to assemble Fredrick’s seat
using IBM. Pet. 64–65 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 199).
We find that Sabatini and Gass describe conveyor lines. Ex. 1002
¶ 199; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 15. We also credit Dr. Davis’s testimony that it would
have been obvious to use a continuous conveyor because record evidence
supports it. Ex. 1002 ¶ 199 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 68, 74–79, Figs. 8–10;
Ex. 1014, 60–62; Ex. 1017, 12; Ex. 1023, 28–30; Ex. 1029 ¶ 51).
Based on the full record, Petitioner persuades us that IBM, Fredrick,
Sabatini, and Gass teach the limitations of claim 44 and that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have combined these references in the manner asserted.
20. Analysis of Claim 45
Claim 45 depends from claim 43 and recites “wherein the fixture and
unassembled base frame are provided by means of an intermittent conveyor
line.” Ex. 1001, 20:18–20.
Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that it would
have been obvious to use an intermittent conveyor to assemble Fredrick’s
seat using IBM. Pet. 62, 64–65 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 199).
We find that Sabatini and Gass describe conveyor lines. Ex. 1002
¶ 199; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 15. We also credit Dr. Davis’s testimony that it would
have been obvious to use an intermittent conveyor because record evidence
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
67
supports it. Ex. 1002 ¶ 199 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 68, 74–79, Figs. 8–10; Ex.
1014, 60–62; Ex. 1017, 12; Ex. 1023, 28–30; Ex. 1029 ¶ 51).
Based on the full record, Petitioner persuades us that IBM, Fredrick,
Sabatini, and Gass teach the limitations of claim 45 and that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have combined these references in the manner asserted.
21. Analysis of Claim 46
Claim 46 depends from claim 26 and recites “wherein the single
process site includes a third fastening location that consists of a single
opening for receiving a single fastener.” Ex. 1001, 20:21–23.
Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that it would
have been obvious to provide a third fastening location or opening for
Fredrick’s third bolt. Pet. 57 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 182), 62.
We find that Fredrick shows a third fastening location that receives a
bolt. Ex. 1007, 3:9–12, Fig. 1. We also credit Dr. Davis’s testimony that it
would have been obvious to provide a third opening for a fastener because
the full record supports it. Ex. 1002 ¶ 182 (citing Ex. 1007, 3:10–12, Fig. 1).
Based on the full record, Petitioner persuades us that IBM, Fredrick,
Sabatini, and Gass teach the limitations of claim 46 and that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have combined these references in the manner asserted.
22. Analysis of Claim 47
Claim 47 depends from claim 46 and recites “wherein the
predetermined sequence of fastening is of all of the first, second, and third
fastening locations such that a fastener must be inserted in the first fastening
location before a fastener is inserted in the second or third fastening
locations.” Ex. 1001, 20:24–28.
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
68
Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that it would
have been obvious to apply IBM to Fredrick’s three fastening locations.
Pet. 57 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 182), 60.
We find that Fredrick shows a third fastening location that receives a
bolt. Ex. 1007, 3:9–12, Fig. 1. We also credit Dr. Davis’s testimony that it
would have been obvious to apply IBM’s fastening sequence to a fastener in
a third fastening location so that fasteners are inserted sequentially from the
first to the third fastening location because record evidence supports it.
Ex. 1002 ¶ 182 (citing Ex. 1007, 3:10–12, Fig. 1).
Based on the full record, Petitioner persuades us that IBM, Fredrick,
Sabatini, and Gass teach the limitations of claim 47 and that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have combined these references in the manner asserted.
23. Analysis of Claim 48
Claim 48 depends from claim 26 and recites
wherein the electronic controller, when executing the
predetermined sequence program, requires that the operator’s
use of the fastening tool conforms to the predetermined sequence
of fastening of the first and second fastening locations and
disables the fastening tool from performing a fastening operation
when it is located at the first fastening location if the operator
already has applied a first fastener in the first fastening location
with a torque that equals the first predetermined torque.
Ex. 1001, 20:29–38.
Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that IBM
teaches the limitations of claim 48. Pet. 39–40 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 121;
Ex. 1003, 82), 56 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 180), 60, 62.
We find that IBM teaches that “[p]ower is not applied to the driver 11
until comparison of measured and stored correct dimensions show it to be in
the correct position.” Ex. 1003, 82. We also credit Dr. Davis’s testimony
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
69
for claim 48 because IBM supports it. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 121 (citing Ex. 1003,
82), 180 (citing Ex. 1003, 82).
Petitioner, thus, persuades us that IBM teaches the limitations of claim
48. Also, as discussed above, Petitioner persuades us that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have combined IBM, Fredrick, Sabatini, and Gass in
the manner asserted.
24. Analysis of Claim 49
Claim 49 depends from claim 28 and recites “wherein the alarm is
sounded as a result of the attempt to remove the first and second components
from the assembly station.” Ex. 1001, 20:39–41.
Like claims 27–31, Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not
dispute, that Gass and Sabatini teach the benefits of an assembly line for
bolting together automobile components, and that it would have been
obvious to implement IBM at an assembly station that holds those
components and to use stop mechanisms or alarms to correct a problem as
taught by Sabatini. Pet. 44–48 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 133–145, 149–152;
Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 2, 6, 7, 46; Ex. 1008, 54–55; Ex. 1011 ¶ 14;
Ex. 1014, 233; Ex. 1023, 27–28; Ex. 1031, 16–17, 19), 62 (citing Ex. 1002
¶¶ 197, 200).
Our findings discussed above for claims 27–31 also show that IBM,
Gass, and Sabatini teach these limitations. We also credit Dr. Davis’s
testimony regarding the teachings of these references and the reason why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references in the
manner asserted because record evidence supports his opinion. Ex. 1002
¶¶ 133–145 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 2, 6, 46; Ex. 1008, 55;
Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 14–17; Ex. 1014, 233; Ex. 1017, 12–13; Ex. 1023, 27–30; Ex.
1031, 16–17, 19), 149–152 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 68, 74–79,
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
70
Figs. 8–10; Ex. 1023, 29), 197 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 7, 46; Ex. 1008, 55; Ex.
1014, 233:2–9; Ex. 1017, 12–13), 200.
Based on our findings above for claims 27–31, we find that the
combination of IBM, Fredrick, Gass and Sabatini teaches the limitations of
claim 49 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these
references in the manner asserted.
F. Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness
Patent Owner contends that “abundant evidence of copying of the
claimed system by industry leader, Johnson Controls, as well as additional
undisputed widespread commercial success of the claimed system over the
past decade, highlight the weaknesses in Petitioners’ grounds and supports
the nonobviousness of the challenged claims.” PO Resp. 7.
1. Nexus
Objective indicia of nonobviousness are “only relevant to the
obviousness inquiry ‘if there is a nexus between the claimed invention and
the [objective indicia of nonobviousness].’” In re Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC,
856 F.3d 883, 901 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech.,
Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). For objective indicia of
nonobviousness to be accorded substantial weight, their proponent must
establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed
invention. ClassCo, Inc., v. Apple, Inc., 838 F.3d 1214, 1220 (Fed. Cir.
2016). “[T]here is no nexus unless the evidence presented is ‘reasonably
commensurate with the scope of the claims.’” Id. (quoting Rambus Inc. v.
Rea, 731 F.3d 1248, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2013)).
A patentee is entitled to a presumption of nexus “when the patentee
shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and
that product ‘embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’”
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
71
Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
(quoting Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris
Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000))); Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom,
Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 33, 32 (PTAB January 24, 2020) (precedential,
designated April 14, 2020). On the other hand, the patentee is not entitled to
a presumption of nexus if the patented invention is only a component of a
commercially successful machine or process. Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at
1373(reaffirming the importance of the “coextensiveness” requirement).
“[T]he purpose of the coextensiveness requirement is to ensure that
nexus is only presumed when the product tied to the evidence of secondary
considerations ‘is the invention disclosed and claimed.’” Fox Factory, 944
F.3d at 1374 (quoting Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd.,
851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). “[T]he degree of correspondence
between a product and a patent claim falls along a spectrum. At one end of
the spectrum lies perfect or near perfect correspondence. At the other end
lies no or very little correspondence.” Id. “A patent claim is not coextensive
with a product that includes a ‘critical’ unclaimed feature that is claimed by
a different patent and that materially impacts the product’s functionality.”
Id. at 1375.
However, “[a] finding that a presumption of nexus is inappropriate
does not end the inquiry into secondary considerations.” Fox Factory, 944
F.3d at 1375. “To the contrary, the patent owner is still afforded an
opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary
considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the
claimed invention.’” Id. at 1373–74 (quoting In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135,
140 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). “Where the offered secondary consideration actually
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
72
results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the
claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention,” meaning that
“there must be a nexus to some aspect of the claim not already in the prior
art.” In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068–69 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (emphasis in
original). On the other hand, there is no requirement that “objective
evidence must be tied exclusively to claim elements that are not disclosed in
a particular prior art reference in order for that evidence to carry substantial
weight.” WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
A patent owner may show, for example, “that it is the claimed combination
as a whole that serves as a nexus for the objective evidence; proof of nexus
is not limited to only when objective evidence is tied to the supposedly
‘new’ feature(s).” Id. at 1330.
Ultimately, the fact finder must weigh the secondary considerations
evidence presented in the context of whether the claimed invention as a
whole would have been obvious to a skilled artisan. Id. at 1331–32. Once
the patentee has presented a prima facie case of nexus, the burden of coming
forward with evidence in rebuttal shifts to the challenger “to adduce
evidence to show that the commercial success was due to extraneous factors
other than the patented invention.” Demaco, 851 F.2d at 1393.
Patent Owner contends that Petitioner “use[s] the [Atlas Copco
(“AC”)] Systems and other tooling to assemble engines, seats and other
automotive components in a manner coextensive with the Claimed Torque
and Sequence Requirements.” PO Resp. 63 (citing Paper 23, 8–9;
Exs. 2016–2023, 2025–2027, 2029). Patent Owner also contends that “[t]he
Claimed Torque and Sequence Requirements practiced by the systems is the
direct reason,” and that a “presumptive nexus therefore exists between
Petitioner-Defendants’ use of the AC Systems and other systems and the
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
73
challenged claims.” Id. at 64 (citing Paper 23, 7, 9–10; Ex. 2064). Patent
Owner further contends that a Johnson Controls International (“JCI”)
assembly process control system is coextensive with the Claimed Torque
and Sequence Requirements. Id. at 66 (citing Paper 23, 7–8; Ex. 2009).
Petitioner replies that Patent Owner “concedes that it has not shown
that any accused instrumentality includes every limitation of its two-column
long claim [26], much less commercial success of or copying by the
unidentified accused instrumentality, much less a nexus.” Pet. Reply 33
(citing PO Resp. 62–67). Patent Owner does not provide a reply argument
regarding its objective indicia of nonobviousness. See generally PO Sur-
reply.
Patent Owner “bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists.”
WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed.
Cir. 1999). “To determine whether the patentee has met that burden, we
consider the correspondence between the objective evidence and the claim
scope.” Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed.
Cir. 2019) (quoting Demaco, 851 F.2d at 1392).
We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner does not provide credible
arguments or evidence that shows nexus between the challenged claims and
asserted commercial success and copying. See Pet. Reply 33. Exhibits
2016–2022 are complaints from related litigation, and Exhibits 2009, 2023,
2025–2027, and 2029 are redacted responses, objections, or answers to
interrogatories in related litigation. Exhibit 2064 is an Atlas Copco
advertising video. Patent Owner does not argue how these exhibits show
nexus between the challenged claims and asserted objective indicia of
nonobviousness. See PO Resp. 64–64, 66.
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
74
We also determined previously that Patent Owner did not satisfy its
burden of showing that documents it sought from Petitioner would show
nexus because those documents lacked technical details for comparing to the
challenged claims and Patent Owner did not sufficiently show that the
documents would support a showing of nexus, commercial success, or
copying. Paper 37, 9–10, 14–15, 18.
For the reasons above, Patent Owner has not satisfied its burden that
nexus exists.
2. Commercial Success
Regarding commercial success, Patent Owner asserts that “Atlas
Copco has experienced great commercial success by selling the AC Systems
worldwide . . . for use in implementing the Claimed Torque and Sequence
Requirements.” PO Resp. 65 (citing Exs. 2016–2027, 2029). Patent Owner
points to the number of seats assembled annually and the percentage of seats
assembled globally by Atlas Copco. Id. (citing Ex. 2064).
Patent Owner does not argue convincingly that AC Systems are
coextensive with the challenged claims. See PO Resp. 65. Patent Owner
also has not sufficiently demonstrated that this “great commercial success”
can fairly be attributed to the Claimed Torque and Sequence Requirements.
The number of seats assembled annually and the percentage of seats
assembled globally by Atlas Copco does not indicate how they are related to
the challenged claims. Exhibits 2016–2027 and 2029 are complaints or
redacted responses, objections, or answers to interrogatories from related
litigation, and Exhibit 2064 is an advertising video. Patent Owner does not
argue or explain how these exhibits show nexus to the alleged commercial
success. Thus, we determine that there is no nexus to the asserted
commercial success.
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
75
Even if we assume nexus, Patent Owner has not sufficiently
demonstrated commercial success. Because the relied-upon exhibits cite to
other evidence that is not in the record, they provide insufficient evidence of
commercial success, and Patent Owner does not explain how the exhibits
show that a system sold by Atlas Copco experienced “great commercial
success.” See PO Resp. 65. If we further assumed that the documents that
Patent Owner sought showed what Patent Owner asserted, they would still
be insufficient to show commercial success for reasons previously stated.
See Papers 23, 37.
3. Copying
Regarding copying, Patent Owner contends that JCI copied the
Claimed Torque and Sequence Requirements into its own assembly process
control system. PO Resp. 66. Patent Owner argues that JCI gained
knowledge from one of the named inventors and “design[ed] their own
assembly and fastening sequence system.” Id. at 66–67.
Patent Owner does not argue convincingly that JCI’s assembly
process control system includes features corresponding to the Claimed
Torque and Sequence Requirements. See PO Resp. 66–67. Even if nexus
could be shown, Patent Owner does not explain how record evidence shows
JCI copied the Claimed Torque and Sequence Requirements. Also, if we
further assumed that the documents that Patent Owner sought showed what
Patent Owner asserted, they would still be insufficient to show copying for
reasons previously stated. See Papers 23, 37.
4. Determination as to Indicia of Nonobviousness
Having considered all the indicia of nonobviousness submitted by
Patent Owner, we do not find sufficient evidence of nexus to copying and
commercial success.
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
76
G. Weighing the Graham Factors
“Once all relevant facts are found, the ultimate legal determination [of
obviousness] involves weighing of the fact findings to conclude whether the
claimed combination would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan.”
Arctic Cat, 876 F.3d at 1361. Above, based on full record before us, we
provide our factual findings regarding (1) the level of ordinary skill in the
art, (2) the scope and content of the prior art, (3) any differences between the
claimed subject matter and the prior art, and (4) objective evidence of
nonobviousness.
In particular, we find that (1) Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary
skill in the art is consistent with the prior art of record; (2) IBM, Fredrick,
Sabatini, and Gass teach or suggest each of the limitations of claims 26–49;
(3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine IBM,
Fredrick, Sabatini, and Gass with a reasonable expectation of success; and
(4) there is insufficient demonstration of nexus to objective evidence of
nonobviousness in the record.
Weighing these findings with our determinations of level of ordinary
skill and objective evidence of nonobviousness in the record, a
preponderance of the evidence persuades us that claims 26–49 of the ’232
patent are unpatentable over IBM, Fredrick, Sabatini, and Gass. Further,
even if nexus to objective evidence of nonobviousness were established and
we reweighed Patent Owner’s evidence directed to alleged copying and
commercial success, we would come to the same determination for the
reasons provided above—that copying and commercial success have not
been persuasively shown and that claims 26–49 of the ’232 patent would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention over the asserted prior art in this proceeding.
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
77
H. Remaining Challenges
Petitioner also challenges claims 26, 39, 41, and 46–48 as
unpatentable over IBM, Stimpson, and optionally Becker (Pet. 23–42);
claims 26–33, 36–41, and 46–49 as unpatentable over IBM, Stimpson,
Sabatini, Gass, and optionally Becker (id. at 42–50); and claims 26, 34, 35,
39, 41–43, and 46–48 as unpatentable over IBM, Fredrick, and optionally
Becker (id. at 50–59). Petitioner further contends that claims 26–33, 36–41,
and 46–49 are unpatentable over Gass, Stimpson, Sabatini, and optionally
Becker (id. at 65–77); and claims 26–49 are unpatentable over Gass,
Fredrick, Sabatini, and optionally Becker (id. at 77–78).
Because we determine that the same claims are unpatentable over
proposed combinations including IBM, Fredrick, Sabatini, and Gass, we do
not reach these additional challenges to these claims. See SAS Inst. Inc. v.
Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359 (2018) (holding a petitioner “is entitled to a
final written decision addressing all of the claims it has challenged”).
Additionally, as discussed above in Section II.C., Petitioner’s proposed
combinations that include Becker are contingent on adopting Petitioner’s
interpretation of “insert” (see Pet. 36–39, 56, 72), and, as the parties argued
(Pet. 22; PO Resp. 22), we do not need to interpret any term to resolve the
parties’ disputes. Thus, for another reason, we do not reach the challenges
that include Becker.

III. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND PATENT OWNER’S
ALTERNATE MOTION TO MAINTAIN EXHIBITS 2068–2078
Petitioner moves to strike Patent Owner’s Sur-reply Exhibits 2068–
2078 and portions of the Sur-reply that quote or cite to those exhibits based
on the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019 (“CTPG”)
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
78
(available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated). Mot.
to Strike 1. Petitioner notes that it timely objected. Id. (citing Paper 41, 3).
The moving party “has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to
the requested relief.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
Petitioner contends that the Board routinely grants such requests.
Mot. to Strike. 1 (citing several Board proceedings). Petitioner also
contends that
Patent Owner’s new evidence and the arguments that rely upon
that new evidence should be struck now because (1) it is “beyond
dispute” that it “is belatedly presented” (CTPG, p. 81), (2) not
striking encourages others to ignore the PTAB’s procedural
restrictions with expected impunity, and (3) Petitioners would be
prejudiced by having to respond to and address Patent Owner’s
new sur-reply evidence at oral argument.
Id. at 1–2.
Petitioner also contends that authorizing a sur-reply does not also
authorize new evidence, neither does the filing of proper rebuttal evidence
with the Reply. Mot. to Strike 2, 3. Petitioner further contends that
arguments that the CTPG is not binding have been rejected. Id. at 2.
Petitioner additionally contends that Patent Owner could have sought to file
a motion to submit new information. Id. at 3–4. Petitioner also argues that
it did not withhold evidence and allowing the exhibits would encourage
other parties to file more papers and evidence. Id. at 4–5.
Patent Owner contends that the exhibits are highly relevant to the
issue of what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from
IBM’s disclosure and rebuts asserted arguments in Petitioner’s Reply about
Hall effect sensors and torque transducers. Opp. to Mot. to Strike 1–4.
Patent Owner, therefore, also moves to maintain the exhibits “for procedural
fairness and a fulsome record.” See id. Patent Owner also argues that
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
79
Petitioner’s arguments are meritless and provides Board cases that are
asserted to support Patent Owner’s position. Id. at 4–5.
Petitioner replies that Patent Owner does not show good cause for
accepting the sur-reply evidence or that it is in the interests of justice
because Patent Owner was on notice that these issues were in dispute. Reply
for Mot. to Strike 1–4. Petitioner also argues that a lack of reply declaration
and the cited Board cases do not allow the disputed exhibits. Id. at 4–5.
Exhibits 2068–2078 provide additional limited context for the
technical field on undisputed issues. Under the circumstances, we find good
cause to permit them to be included in the record.
Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s Motion to Strike and grant Patent
Owner’s Alternate Motion to Maintain Exhibits 2068–2078.

IV. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
Petitioner moves to exclude Exhibits 2036–2046, 2052–2059, 2061–
2066, 2069–2074, 2076, and 2077. Mot. to Excl. 2. Petitioner notes that
objections to these exhibits were timely made. Id. (citing Paper 34, 2), 6
(citing Paper 41, 3). Petitioner, as the “moving party,” “has the burden of
proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief.” 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.20(c).
Petitioner argues that Exhibits 2036–2042, 2052–2058, 2061, 2062,
and 2064–2066 should be excluded based on foundation, authentication,
hearsay, or relevance under Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) 602 and
901(a). Mot. to Excl. 2. According to Petitioner, Patent Owner only
identifies the websites where they were found or if they were available
before the priority date. Id. at 2–5 (citing Ex. 2069 ¶¶ 2–12, 18–25, 27–32).
Petitioner also contends that Exhibits 2036–2042, 2052–2058, 2061, 2062,
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
80
and 2064–2066 should be excluded under FRE 801(c) as inadmissible
hearsay. Id. at 4–5. Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner fails to show
that Exhibits 2036–2046, 2052–2059, and 2061–2066 are prior art. Id. at 5.
Petitioner also argues that Exhibit 2069 should be excluded as
irrelevant because it is not prior art. Mot. to Excl. 6. Petitioner further
argues that Exhibits 2071–2074, 2076, and 2077 should be excluded as
unauthenticated, irrelevant, and hearsay. Id. Petitioner contends that Patent
Owner lacks first-hand knowledge to authenticate these exhibits and only
identifies the source website. Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 4–8, 10, 11).
Petitioner also contends that Exhibits 2070–2074, 2076, and 2077 are
hearsay without an applicable hearsay exception and are irrelevant because
they were from websites after the priority date. Id. at 8.
Patent Owner contends that the disputed exhibits are highly relevant,
establish a reasonable probability that they are what they purport to be on
their face, and provide relevant evidence to demonstrate what was or was not
in the prior art. Opp. to Mot. to Excl. 1–5, 7, 10, 13–15. Patent Owner also
contends that Petitioner’s arguments should go to the weight afforded to the
exhibits. Id. at 5, 6–7. Patent Owner further contends that they are not
hearsay because they are used to show how ordinary skilled artisans
understood clutch components or torque or to show what they describe. Id.
at 6, 7, 9, 11, 15. Patent Owner additionally contends that Exhibits 2045,
2058 and 2061–2063 support Mr. Lehnert’s testimony or the asserted
objective indicia of nonobviousness. Id. at 8–12.
Petitioner replies that Patent Owner fails to provide corroborating
evidence for authentication and the disputed exhibits are not relevant. Reply
for Mot. to Excl. 1–4. Petitioner argues that Patent Owner also relies on
these exhibits for the truth of the matter asserted. Id. at 1, 3.
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
81
We cite these exhibits to indicate where Patent Owner believes
support can be found for its arguments. We do not, however, rely on these
exhibits in our analysis. Accordingly, we dismiss as moot the Motion to
Exclude.

V. CONCLUSION4
In summary:

4 Should Patent Owner wish to pursue amendment of the challenged claim in
a reissue or reexamination proceeding subsequent to the issuance of this
decision, we draw Patent Owner’s attention to the April 2019 Notice
Regarding Options for Amendments by Patent Owner Through Reissue or
Reexamination During a Pending AIA Trial Proceeding. See 84 Fed. Reg.
16,654 (Apr. 22, 2019). If Patent Owner chooses to file a reissue application
or a request for reexamination of the challenged patent, we remind Patent
Owner of its continuing obligation to notify the Board of any such related
matters in updated mandatory notices. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), (b)(2).
5 As explained above in Section II.I., we do not reach this challenge.
6 As explained above in Section II.I., we do not reach this challenge.
7 As explained above in Section II.I., we do not reach this challenge.
Claims

35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis Claims
Shown
Unpatentable
Claims
Not Shown
Unpatentable
26, 39,
41, 46–
48
103(a) IBM, Stimpson5

26, 39,
41, 46–
48
103(a) IBM, Stimpson, Becker6

26–33,
36–41,
46–49
103(a) IBM, Stimpson, Sabatini, Gass7

26–33,
36–41,
46–49
103(a) IBM, Stimpson, Becker, Sabatini,

IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
82

8 As explained above in Section II.I., we do not reach this challenge.
9 As explained above in Section II.I., we do not reach this challenge.
10 As explained above in Section II.I., we do not reach this challenge.
11 As explained above in Section II.I., we do not reach this challenge.
12 As explained above in Section II.I., we do not reach this challenge.
13 As explained above in Section II.I., we do not reach this challenge.
14 As explained above in Section II.I., we do not reach this challenge.
15 As explained above in Section II.I., we do not reach this challenge.
Gass8
26, 34,
35, 39,
41–43,
46–48
103(a) IBM, Fredrick9

26, 34,
35, 39,
41–43,
46–48
103(a) IBM, Fredrick, Becker10

26–49 103(a) IBM, Fredrick, Sabatini, Gass
26–49
26–49 103(a)
IBM, Fredrick,
Becker, Sabatini,
Gass11

26–33,
36–41,
46–49
103(a) Gass, Stimpson, Sabatini12

26–33,
36–41,
46–49
103(a) Gass, Stimpson, Sabatini, Becker13

26–49 103(a) Gass, Fredrick, Sabatini14

26–49 103(a) Gass, Fredrick, Sabatini, Becker15

Overall
Outcome
26–49
IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
83
VI. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that claims 21–49 of U.S. Patent No. RE47,232 E have
been shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, to be unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Strike Patent
Owner’s Sur-reply Evidence (Paper 46) is denied;
FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Maintain
Exhibits 2068–2078 (Paper 47) is granted;
FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
(Paper 49) is dismissed as moot; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
the parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2020-00892
Patent RE47,232 E
84
For PETITIONER:

William Atkins
Benjamin L. Kiersz
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
william.atkins@pillsburylaw.com
benjamin.kiersz@pillsburylaw.com

Chad S. C. Stover
Deborah Pollack-Milgate
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
Chad.Stover@btlaw.com

Dorothy P. Whelan
Joseph A. Herriges
Nitika Gupta Fiorella
FISH & RICHARDSON
Whelan@fr.com
herriges@fr.com

Scott M. Border
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
sborder@sidley.com

FOR PATENT OWNER:
Peter F. Snell
Brad M. Scheller
A. Meena Seralathan
MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
PFSnell@mintz.com
BMScheller@mintz.com